Perhaps you guys can help me out on this one....

What is the difference in patterning and shot string between firing 1oz of a particular size shot(let's say 7.5's) from a 12 gauge that throws a consistant 30" pattern at 40 yards, versus a 1oz payload of the same size shot from a 20 gauge that throws a consistant 30" pattern at 40 yards?

I suppose I meant to say the guns throw an even pattern, consistantly as opposed to a consistant pattern.

No gun throws an evenly distributed pattern, say, like the holes on pegboard. All shot patterns are distributed according to the Rayleigh distribution (akin to a normal distribution). The rate at which the distribution blooms and withers is controlled by choke effect. If the two patterns have the same number of pellets within the 30" circle, it is very likely they have the same distribution. If so, then you have to say they have the same pattern performance. On the other hand, shot string is third dimension of the pellet swarm and can't be seen by capturing a typical pattern. It would be only just slightly incorrect to expect exactly identical performance between two equal patterns where one has a longer string. I know of no definitive data comparing 12 bore to 20 bore for loads of identical power (shot weight and MV).

Ok I understand that no shotgun throws the same pattern twice, nor is the perfect pattern ever repeatable. What I'm saying is that there are no major holes in the pattern, nor any major clumping of pellets. AKA even pattern. For the sake of the question, let's assume that all 350 pellets in both the 12 and 20 gauge loads are inside the 30" circle.

Now, because a 1 oz payload in a 20 bore is in a longer shot column as it sits in the shell and in the chamber and as it goes down the barrel, how is the pellet swarm different as opposed to that same 1 oz payload in a 12 bore which is not as tall in the shot column while in the shell and the chamber and the bore? Because of the larger bore size, does a 12 gauge have a shorter (from first pellet to hit the patterning board to last) shot string?

Length of shot string is not totally determined by length of payload in the shell. The longer/taller payload COULD cause a longer shot string, indirectly, by causing more pellets to scrub the bore and be deformed, but length of shot string is determined more than anything else by hardness of the shot used. The harder the shot the shorter the shot string.

So, if the 20 gauge load happened to be loaded with harder shot than the same weight load in the 12 gauge it would be possible for the shot string to be shorter with the taller payload in the 20 than with the shorter payload in the 12.

It is probable that a 1 oz. load of steel in a 20 would have a shorter shot string than a 1 oz. load of lead in a 12, in spite of the taller load in the shell.

There we go. Thanks Stan. That's good info. So am I left to assume that the harder shot has less friction leaving the barrel since it's not deforming, therefore it has better velocity?

It's odd to me that a shot string that is stacked in a more column like position leaving the barrel in a more linear fashion could actually throw a shorter shot string than the 12 gauge load that because of the larger bore is clearing the choke and muzzle quicker than the smaller bore gun. Interesting.

How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin? If both patterns are equal, and you stick around for them to hit you, there is no difference. I think length of shot string is one of the more useless things to worry about. It was a marketing ploy for Gods sake. Short shot strings were thought to be harder hitting, than long shot strings. But from the birds viewpoint it is not when, but if you get hit, that is important. If a fatal pellet hits you from the first or last part of the pellet stream does it matter? No. Dead is dead.

A late pellet from the end of the shot string may still be in the center of the pattern. If it is in the center of the pattern it just thickness the pattern after the fact of a target perspective. If it is on the fringes it is statically a fluke and not something you can rely on. Either way it is a fools argument.

A pattern board only shows you the total result of a shell. Not the order of the shot hitting the board. Use it to check the point of impact. Use it a a rough guide to what should happen with a certain load. It is not set on stone.

You can worry about the effects of bore scrubbing on a long shot column all you want. Fret about wad protection and buffering of shot all you want. I rather worry about how to get shot on target as fast a possible, to impart all the residual energy as possible on the target as you can. Remember speed kills and never more so true than shot on target. The rest os just foddr to argue over a cold beer or single malt.

The hardness of the shot equates to less shot deformation. The deformed shot, whether from bore scrubbing or setback forces, are less aerodynamic and make their way to the rear of the shot string. We may be talking about a difference of 1/8" to 1/4" in payload length, but a possible range of 4 feet to 12 feet length of shot string.

While it is true that this is nothing to worry about in shooting, IMO, there is nothing wrong with discussing it on a forum like this and trying to understand it more. I do not think anyone who is posting or reading posts on here is in the middle of a shooting session, but may VERY WELL BE enjoying a beer or single malt. Shooting like there is no variation in shot string length and also trying to better understand shotgun ballistics are not mutually exclusive. I'm proof of that.

All my best, Stan

Stan:
My personal preference is for a Boodles and tonic, thank you. And I agree that discussion is the lifeblood of such forums as this. But if you or Phideaux seek answers, it has all been disclosed before in "The Mysteries of Shotgun Patterns" by Oberfell and Thompson. In 1957.

Best (Cheers),
Kensal

More important, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Bravo, KY Jon. Who really cares? Doesn't the length of the shot string also depend on the type of wad you are using or the chokes you are using? If you are using say.... Comp U Chokes, don't they grab the wad and hold the wad back and make the pattern more open? Your first mistake as far as a lot of guys are concerned was going to the patterning board in the first place. But that is just some guys' opinions. I remember the first gun I patterned at the patterning board- after I saw the pattern the size of the hood of my car, I didn't think I would ever miss anything. Boy was I wrong! After that, I just went out and shot a few rounds of trap or skeet and figured out how the gun shot that way. That patterning board can really mess with your head. But I wouldn't be that concerned with the shot string. It's there- about 8-10 feet long.

Forget philosophy. Go to Time Wrap people, borrow their camera. Shoot a variety of guns to determine one with the shortest and one with the longest shot strings. Get the shock(s) alerted to make sure you're as good with one as with the other. Take both guns to Argentina, switch guns after every 100 shells, have a cameraman film your shooting. Process the results. BTW, I'm not a financial adviser, so don't ask me who's going to pay for that

I guess it would depend on the density of the wOOd.

I do sense you ask.

Understanding shot string is vitally important to shooting sub-gauges. It stands to reason. If you look down into an uncrimped .410 shell, that pellet in the center of the top layer of pellets is going to exit the muzzle at whatever speed and it will go in a straighter (as straight as a round object can travel) line to the target than the pellet at the bottom of the wad cup up against the side of the bore. That bottom pellet will be deformed and it will leave the muzzle later than the front pellet. Both are equally as deadly. Understanding what they will do in flight is just one more way I can understand the power and workings of the shotgun I'm swinging.

I like to understand how things work. It makes me enjoy using them much much more. Forgive me if that's ignorant, but it's how my mind operates.

Stan, great post yet again.

Do you really think it can effect up to 1/4" of payload length? I didn't realize it had that much of the payload.

While not directly related to a comparison of gauge shot string, I read somewhere (one of the two NRA mags.) that ducks, geese and pheasants are killed with as few as three pellet hits in the body and are seldom hit by more than five. So how ever long the string is a miss is probably defined as less than three hits? Clay targets ought to get busted as well with a 20ga as with a 12ga with 1oz of shot and an lot of pellets going right on by.

That's interesting Ben-t. I'd be interested to read that article if you can remember which magazine it was in.

I find that white wing doves don't require too many pellets, maybe just one sometimes, but that mourning doves require as many as 8 or 9 before they're brought down for good. They're hearty little critters!

It was many years ago, well before The American Rifleman went mostly tactical and assault. I many run through some old ones just to see if I can find it. If I do I'll be sure to let you know!

Plastic wad vs the old style cork or fiber is also a factor, because the plastic does a better job of protecting the shot from deformation.

Hits on a pheasant . . . I've read elsewhere that you want 3 that reach something vital for a very high probability of a kill. The vital area comprises about half the bird's body, so assuming you center the bird, while you may have only 3 hits to the body, you're almost certain to have more in other places (legs and wings, etc).

Hi Phi,
It's always interesting (more or less) to know how things work. However, as some of the others have implied, what would/could you do with the information even if there was a definite answer. IMO, shotstring is not something that can be used to the shooter's advantage and also not something to worry about. It exists but if you shoot behind the target, none of the shot will hit it and if you shoot in front of the target, the shot string goes by so much faster than the target is moving, it will not help you there, either. Shoot the best, hardest, roundest shot you can afford and keep swinging it, like John Anderson says.

John Anderson offers excellent advice as always, but in relation to what you've said, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The dynamics of a shotstring change when a swing is applied to the discharge (or so I've been told and I've read). The shot is moving a great deal quicker than the target and if the pattern of a shotgun swinging is wider, taller, thinner than that of the pattern of a shotgun that is simply being pointed and fired like a rifle, then you can certainly play that curve to your advantage.

Hello Phi,

I cannot logically accept that swinging or not swinging a gun will affect the shotstring.
We are not talking of a garden hose here.

JC

P.S.: interesting thread btw. jc

I beleive the term "shot string" refers to holes in a sheet of paper that are shot with a gun not moving and the piece of paper that is moving aproximately perpenducular to the shot. That is the target is struck by the first pellets and the following pellets string out across the paper illustrating the string. Using a game bird the string is not going to be illustrated it is just going to go behind the bird. If a slow motion camera is used rather than a moving target board the "string" would show as a swarm of pellets some leading others following. The later is the more accurate illustration of a shot string.

See Bob Brister The Art and Science of Shotgunning. He did it all with pix decades ago.

shot column heights are what they are. Who GAF? Shot strings are choke effect dependent. and once again Who GAF? Worry about something you can affect.

And if you are at that hose analogy for shot charges/strings you are in some serious trouble and in massive conflict with the physical universe. JIC you might have wondered.

Dr.WtS

You're welcome to disagree with me, especially when you are doing it respectfully. However, my advice to "keep swinging" referred to follow-through, not suggesting that you could bend the shotstring. That is a not uncommon myth but a myth, nevertheless. As WTS said, this is not a garden hose.

Rocketman- Excellent explination! Thank you! I understand what makes a pattern "good", if you'll permit me to use the term in a royal sense. What I was most interested in discussing and hearing about was the effect on pellet swarm/shot string (however you want to refer to it) of stacking 1 oz of shot in a narrow, taller shot column (IE 20 bore) and sending it down a barrel and through the choke versus placing the 1 oz of shot in a wider, shorter shot column (IE 12 bore) and doing the same thing with it. Does the choke have more time to effect the pattern with the taller column? Does the shot column passing through the choke quicker because of it's shorter length cause better patterning?

I ask this because as a general rule (we've tried this with 8 different guns and it seems to be universally true with all of them...) that a 20 bore firing an ounce of shot in a proper IC choke has a concentrated center (the inner most washer's if you will) with high pellet counts while the fringes of the pattern are thinner, but when we try it with the 12 bore's with that same 1 oz of shot it patterns very evenly, much like the ideal you describe in your post, damn near every time.



Now please understand that I DO infact know that different guns pattern different loads differently and that no two patterns are alike and what knot, but what I'm asking is this...

Does a "light for gauge" payload pattern more evenly as a rule or is this just some anomaly that just can't be explained?

Ok Jim, can we talk about that? I was raised on the "water hose" theory and I've always used it to assist me mentally with follow through, but I've also been under the impression that one could effect shot string by the swing of the gun. Can you explain that a little further? I'm going to check Greener's book. I seem to remember something about it in there too.

Hello Jaime,

Follow-through, follow-through. Most important, as in golf!

JC

You can always tell a Texan,,,,,,,,,,,but not much. The shotstring does not even exist until after the shot has left the muzzle, so how could moving the muzzle (after it's gone) affect it?
The impression you've been under is simply wrong. As shotgunners, we are plagued with myths, false impressions and old wives' tales. This is just one more of them.

Hi Phi,

Even if Einstein supported the "water hose" theory I could not buy it, let alone Greener.

Please think about it: how can a swarm of pellets leaving the barrel milliseconds after you
pull the trigger at +/- 1,200ft/sec be "modified" by you moving the barrel?

Come on!

JC

JayCee, that's exactly what I'm asking. You're not explaining to me how it can't be modified. You're taking it for granted that I agree with you and I simply don't know one way or the other anymore. What I'm asking for is an explination of why barrel swing can't effect shot string. To me it seems like it would.

Wonko I'm sorry but that's ignorant... that's like saying bullet head spacings "are what they are". We're talking about ballistics here. EVERYTHING has an effect.

Jim, please understand that I'm not arguing with you. My understanding of the subject has been found to be incomplete and down right wrong and I just want to know why. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but that doesn't help me. I want to understand this subject. That's why I posted the OP.

Why do we keep the muzzle moving ?

To sling the string.....think with yer dip stick Jammy

The shot string is not as long in a 1 & 1/4 oz balanced load as in say an over stuffed 2 &1/4oz 12 ga. load.

I've done my best to avoid commenting in this thread, but now it's just impossible to ignore.

The hose nozzle analogy always fishes me in.

The effect of the choke is near exactly analogous to a nozzle. The shot is spread logitundially by the choke, and stop action photographs prove that.

The shotstring starts in the shotcup. Some pellets are ahead of others. Only if the bore was big enough to accomodate a single layer of pellets would there be no shotstring.

The length of the shotstring at the target is effected by, as mentioned, the degree of choke, the roundness of the pellets, and the TIME OF FLIGHT.

The possible effect of muzzle motion on spreading the pattern radially is not illogical to consider. In fact, if the shot charge took a long time to exit the muzzle the effect would be measureable simply because trailing pellets would be given a different vector at exit. The key is relative motion and time. Since the charge which is very short, passes the muzzle very quickly at exit, the pellets are given essentially the same vector. It's impossible for the gunner to move the gun fast enough to create any measureable spread. It's not a dumb question, it's just not something that can be measured because the effect is tiny at our muzzle speeds.

The 'follow through' is neurological. It takes time, quite a bit of it actually, from the time your brain says 'fire' to the exit time of the shot charge. The 'follow through' so necessary to hit the target assures the launch point is as intended and not 10 feet behind like it is if you fail to 'follow through'. This is experimentally proven every time I miss a bird.

I was tempted to repost my above comments in BOLD so that you might be able to absorb that info in a more efficacious manner. But I decided that clearly you lack the ability to read and comprehend so I passed on that. I will reluctantly refrain from commenting on your ancestry as well.

have a day

Dr.WtS

Excellent! Thank you shotgunjones. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Wonko, you however have still merely given a statement with, until now, no explination. Thusly your statement was taken as opinion, one I happened to not understand. Rather than explain it you chose to chastise me as ignorant and an idiot. I hope to heaven you're not a teacher. You'd be a miserable failure if you were.

Thank you again shotgunjones.

Series of individual 1/1,000,000 second exposures showing shotgun firing shot & wad separation.



Individual photos of the time series.
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/exhibit-shotgun-blast.html

Pete

That's the heart of it. The shot is traveling down the bore essentially as compact as a slug. The muzzle would have to be moving fast enough to send the leading pellet in one direction and the last pellet (1" behind?) to clear the muzzle in a diferent direction. The entire shot load (if it averaged 1200 fps) spent only 0.002 seconds in the 30" bore from ignition to exit...moving on average just 1 inch in .00006 second.

So, the last pellet leaves the muzzle .00006 second behind the first....how much has the swinging muzzle moved in that time? Help me out here.

Targets can fly 50 mph and a swing-thru shooter can start behind one and accelerate thru it, so we can swing a muzzle at least 50 mph (right?). If so, the muzzle moves 880 inches/sec.....that's about 0.05" in the .00006 second delay from the first to last pellet.
So, if we shot a pattern at 40yds from a static muzzle, then moved the muzzle 0.05" and shot again, we'd be simulating a 50mph swing on a 40 yd crosser. The pattern center displacement would be 2" (?) Can we locate a pattern center shift to within+/- 1" at 40 yds? I think not.

OK, Rocketman.....you owe me a math/logic check.

Mike, thanks for putting numbers to my intuition!

JC

JayCee,

I have no life.

Mike, I was tempted to take a stab at that myself but it involves trig. Having failed that class, and gone on to an ignominious non-mathematical career I'll defer to Don A.

The actual muzzle speed is a good bit less than target speed, and it's the angular rate of change that matters - or in our case doesn't matter because it's so tiny.

Actually I am an excellent teacher and students, except slackers, love my classes and fill waiting lists. That is because not only do I provide basic information and refs, I challenge them to actually read and think on their own. You would likely not do well in my classes.

Dr.WtS

Phi, actually Wonko DID answer your question. All you needed to do was refer to the book he mentioned: Bob Brister's "Shotgunning: The Art and the Science". That's a must have, for anyone serious about shotguns and ballistics. In it, Brister shot at moving pattern boards (towed by his wife, behind the family station wagon), some of them at quite long range. He includes quite a few photos of the resulting patterns. The idea that moving the muzzle is going to do anything that will show on the pattern board is a bit like the old idea that you might be able to save your life if you're in a falling elevator by jumping just before it hits. The one event takes place too quickly, the other not quickly enough. But maybe, if you're an NBA star with extremely good "hang time" . . .

Several of us have answered your question, already. The comparison to a hose nozzle is quite ridiculous, to begin with. The water is coming out as a continuous stream. The shot exits the muzzle as a short mass, as shown in the pictures. If you could burp an inch long slug of water out of a hose, it would not be bent by moving the hose nozzle, either. You've had your answers, you're just refusing to read and accept the logic contained in them. Proving that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

That's not an answer though L. Brown. That's passing the buck. I obviously don't have that book. That's why I asked the question.



THAT is an answer and I thank you. You've brought a new demension to this conversation. Perhaps if Wonko had taken the time to instruct rather than tell his student to "look it up" maybe certain comments wouldn't have been warranted.

Yes sir, NOW many people have answered the question (including yourself) and I thank you all. But only 7 people actually contributed to this conversation. Stan, Ben-T, Rocketman, ShotgunJones, L. Brown, Mike Campbell (after initially not contributing, later did contribute) and yourself. The rest of the 40 some odd posts are either passing the buck, making fun of me, or simply saying that my ideas are poppycock without explaining why. Can you see how those comments are not effective in answering my question? These people didn't contribute a single intelligable comment to this thread: KY Jon, Jimmy W, HomelessJoe, JayCee Wonko and you Jim (initially but did eventually contribute something of worth). Wonko and Kensal Rise passed the buck to other references that, if I'd had those books I'm sure would have answered my question.

I'm sorry but I thought he point of this kind of forum was to have conversations like this and dispell rumors and myths. In my 129 posts on this forum I've been persecuted for God knows how many different things. You guys must like keeping your membership elite, because you've got to be running people off. I'm darn close to giving up on this forum myself.

It's sad that people who can be so cool to talk to and have so much information to share can be so full of piss and vinegar.

My dear Phi,

I take umbrage at your comment. My only intended contribution was to make you
think. Honestly intended and not wanting to offend or put off.

Sorry if my intentions were off mark.

JC

OK JayCee. I can see how your posts were pretty innocuous. I'm sorry, I guess these other guys just had me in a bad frame of mind.

you expect ME or most anyone else here to re-create chapters of exposition that are readily available in any number of libraries or book dealers???? I didn't WRITE the fooking book, I read it. Just like you can. You gotta lota balls dumping on people that answered your question with a ref to a learned work. Your concept of passing the buck is prolly the most whining excuse for not researching I've seen. If you wanna feel hurt cuz someone told you to do it yourself I suggest that maybe you should get your mama to read it for you.

have a day

Dr.WtS

No Wonko I didn't expect you to do. Others managed it just fine however.

Well rather than letting this disolve into juvinile insults and idiocy, I'll just concede to the teacher who doesn't teach and the one who can tell people where to find answers in books but evidently can't paraphrase an idea into two or three sentences.

Is that a librarian?

Are shot strings the same in California and Texas ?

Base theory is right, but we need to clean up the math. We have to get a SWAG of the angular velocity of the shotgun. That, not linear velocity of the target, is the needed number. We will, however, get it from the target's linear velocity. Note, these are approximations, not exacting calculations. We need only have a good approximation to understand this issue. OK, lets take a reeeeealy fast bird, say 100 feet per second (over 60 mph) in close, say ten yards (30 feet). The angular velocity of the bird would be approximated by 360 degrees divided by the time the bird would require to fly one lap. The circumference of a 10 yard circle is 2 X pi X radius = 2 X 3.14 X 30 feet = 185 feet. 185feet/ 100 feet per second = 1.85 seconds. 360 degrees/1.85 seconds = 195 degrees per second. The shotgun barrel must match this angular velocity or a little faster. A 1 inch shot charge will transit the muzzle in 1"/1200 fps = 1"/1200 fps x 12 in/ft = 1"/14,400 ips = 0.00007 seconds. The angular shift in the direction the barrel is pointing between the exit of the first pellet and the last pellet is 195 degrees per second X 0.00007 seconds = 0.01 degrees = 0.01 degrees X 60 MOA/degree = 0.4 MOA. Riflemen will tell you that 1 MOA is approximated at 1" at 100 yards. So, 0.40 MOA = 0.4" at 100 yards or about 0.2" at 50 yards. Ergo, the shot pattern is bent by the swing of the barrel, but only a trivial amount.

Math check from all interested would be appreciated.

I haven't read all of these posts. I am too old and too lazy to worry about so many technical things like the pellet at the top of the shell being undeformed and the one down in the bottom being un-undeformed. I just look at it this way.... when you are driving your car down the steet and a little kid runs out in front of your car, do you think "Oh my!! There is a little kid and I am going to run over him!! I have to take my right foot off of the gas pedal and put it on the brake to stop the car!" OR, does that little computer in your head do the whole thing for you- faster than you can even think about it? Same way with shootin' guys. Just practice and let that little computer take over for you. The more you practice, the better that computer works. But when you start throwing deformed shot, patterning boards, changing guns and other bullcrap into the works, you usually end up short circuiting that little computer. NSBM!

Phideaux, perhaps the best information contained herein is the recommendation that you get, and read, Brister's book.

Now that's thinking with yer dip stick Jimmy.

Bravo, Don (Rocketman). That covers it nicely without any of that cosine stuff.

The gist of Brister's data is that from the viewpoint of the target, the shot cloud looks quite a bit different than what you see on a stationary pattern board.

If this stuff doen't interest you, some of us would invite you to spend your leisure time elsewhere. It's a big net, go someplace that tickles your fancy.

A recommendation that someone procure and read Brister's "Shotgunning, the Art and the Science" is the best thing to appear on this thread. It is available amazingly cheap, and is immensely entertaining and educational. Brister is a hero to the shotgunner, wrote of blood sports, including flyer shooting, in the mass media as well as the outdoor media, and was winning money with a shotgun in the last month of his long life.

Rocketman - your calcs were run at ten yds. The angular displacement of the target at 50yds at the same speed is not the same.

HTH

Dr.WtS

Don,

If there was no wad, I would agree with your math. But the pellets exit together.

If you look at the photography, They do not begin to separate until nearly 6" from the muzzle. At 12" the column is deformed.

Add in the fact that some pellets are compressed, thus deforming them and changing their co-efficient. The wad, hardness of the shot and any buffering material all play a role. Given that, I believe that a mathematically pristine Rayleigh distribution is impacted. The theory at least assumes all components of the distribution to be equal. In practice an allowance is always made for reality.

The pellets do not impact the plane of the target simultaneously. Not just because of the length of the column, but also because of minor variations in velocity and ballistic co-efficient. This becomes obvious to the shotgunner at the patterning board.

Pete

It's less. He used 'worst case'.

Pete, you've restated the reason for the shotstring having appreciable length in the first place. Other than choke effect, the factors you name cause the string to lengthen and thus cause difference in time of flight of the individual pellets. Explain how that changes the statistical distibution.

Not much string'n going on at the muzzle or 10 yards.

Wonker - righteio, old chap, it isn't. Isn't 'tall. So, lets us do 'z mathematikz. Circumference of 50 yard radius = 2 pi X 150 feet = 943 feet. 943 feet / 100 feet per second = 9.43 seconds. 360 degrees / 9.43 seconds = 38 degrees per second. 38 degrees per second X 0.00007 seconds = 0.0027 degrees = 0.16 Minutes Of Angle (MOA). So, the shot string would be bent by 0.08 inches at 50 yards.

Fast and close is worst case for angular velocity of the shotgun and high angular velocity is what is required to bend the shot string.

Questions?

So what yer saying is....the longer the shot column is in a loaded shell the longer the shot string'n effect is at longer distances.

That's not what Rocket is investigating. He's putting math to the concept of latteral dispersion caused by angular motion of the gun ("swing"). This is to explain the reason it's not a factor in shotstringing rather than just shouting down people as idiots for even mentioning it. Seems he's done that, and the issue is certainly settled now.

If you take a tripod photo (single vector) of a moving car with a very slow shutter speed and look at the result, you're left with the impression that the moving object (car or shot string on a towed patterning board a la Brister) is "longer" than it really is. The 12 foot long imprint on the moving board is an artifact of a combination of lateral travel of the board and variations in arrival time among the different pellets. So you get what appears to be a "sling effect", even though all of the pellets are exiting the rt. barrel of the 1892 H & H along essentially the same vector because of the fantastically small elapsed time interval?

The observed elongated pattern is not caused by gun movement.

It's caused by the fact that during the passage of the shot cloud (it has length as well as width) the target moves.

Think of Brister's elongated patterns as a photo from the target's perspective.

Your better shooters will tell you the same thing. Quit worrying about all the technical stuff and just practice shooting the gun. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that. You shoot and think with your ........

Perhaps it is the best information but I won't know that until I actually get Mr. Brister's book now will I?

Rocketman- Your calculations explain much! Thank you! Great data. I suppose it stands to reason that the muzzle wouldn't be moving as quickly if the target, moving at the same speed, were at 50 yards as opposed to 10, correct? That would make the effect even smaller. Interesting. I suppose if I were an engineer or a physicist I'd have known that.



These would have been my next questions by Wonko and yourself have asked and answered those for me as well. Many thanks. These are the types of things I was hoping to discuss when this thread started. I'm glad we finally got here.

Maybe this is the best advice. I can think of things where this philosophy wouldn't work too well, IE doing a break job on your vehicle by yourself the first time, but sometimes we have to think things out to realize they're irrelavent.

Glad that's over

Wore out your rectum thinking with your brain again, eh, Joby? Ha-Ha!

Hey!! Here's a thought, Joby. Why don't you go over to the other board and use my name so everyone will know it isn't me. Or, what's that? They won't they let you on anymore? Gee.

What you talking about Jammy....You been in the sauce or does yer insanity just come natural.

That's right, Joby. I forgot. You were the person who played that inbred mutant playing the banjo in Deliverence. That's why you can't remember. D-u-u-u-u-h!!

Why don't you and Ted take yer retarded crap else where.

Why don't I go somewhere else? I've been on here a bit longer than you have there squirt. A lot of us feel that you are nothing more than a temporary vagrant. That will be the day when you tell someone to go somewhere else, bub. Or better yet, why don't you go back over to another board and use my name for a while. See what that gets you.

Jammy I wouldn't use yer name anywhere...I wouldn't want people thinking I'm some mOron named Jimmy W.

And this is why this board is slowly losing it's appeal.

It seems there a couple of guys on here that like to stalk me...what do you suggest I do ?

Move to Kalifornia.

Got along without ya before I met ya, Fido.

jack

A woman joins a convent and takes a vow of silence, she can only speak two words a year and only to the sister superior. After one year the sister superior asks her what she has to say. Her response is “Bad food!”. The sister superior admonishes her for complaining and sends her away. The second year her response is “Bad beds!” Again the sister superior admonishes her and sends her away. The third year her response is “I Quit!!!” To which the sister superior says “Leave then, because all you’ve done since you got here is complain!”
I’ve grown to enjoy jOes simple, to the point, one liners, they remind me of that joke.
Steve

Not to spoil anyone's fun by reverting to the subject, but... the calculations of the effect of a swinging barrel on the horizontal axis of the (non plastic cup-wadded)shot string whilst being interesting in themselves, can be tested against experiment.

I've tried to produce the effect by rapidly swinging a gun (felt wads)and shooting at a pattern plate ... nothing.

I suspect this is for two reasons; the effect if any is very small, and at the moment of ignition the recoil stops most of the swinging motion anyway. In any case try as I might I never saw any much difference in the patterns thrown by a swinging barrel as against a still one.

You can get a rough idea of the comparative length of a shot string by listening to it hit the pattern board.

Eug

Hello Eug,

Glad you brought the topic back.

Given that the shot charge flies in the shape of a fat sausage, I still find it improbable,
nay, impossible to alter its shape by swinging the barrels, considering the speeds
involved.

JC

Ought to be easy enough to find out. Just park the trailer Brister's wife was pulling the billboard around with and shoot it standing still; once at benchrest, and once with a quick swinging follow though...Geo

The point of impact will surely vary, not the shape of the pattern.

Still, I think a billboard/patterning board does not represent what is actually
happening in the air between the shot swarm and the target. It is two against
three dimensions.

JC

JC. Mrs. Brister was white-knuckling the steering wheel in an unhardened Estate Wagon but was also representing the speed over the ground of a flying target. Admittedly, a duck can't elongate to the width of a bed sheet to catch all the shot but can sure as hell be in a position relative to late-arriving pellets to catch a few. If size of pattern improves your chances of a hit, then it's pretty easy to hypothesize that stringing (a "wider" pattern as a 2D representation of the time of arrival of all shot made grossly obvious by the movement of a very large plane or target normal to the passage of shot) would also improve your chances IF the shot population of stragglers was large enuf to put the required 3 to 5 into a crosser. Big and probably not very practical IF. I personally think the "garden hose" analogy is useful if not misunderstood. A lot of shooters pull away, or "follow thru" or flick ahead AS IF a sudden acceleration of gun speed would disperse shot laterally; no harm in what they believe to be the case as the action puts the muzzle ahead of the bird. Another case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

jack

Mon Cher Lapin,

Could not agree more!

JC

P.S. : Follow through, follow though! jc

San Francisco would be the perfect place for ya. Or better yet, I heard Tinkerbell died and they're looking for another fairy.

Uh, sorry, gentlemen. Now as you were saying- before we were rudely interupted by this total nitwit who can't get his mind off of someone else's dipstick. (It was YOU who lamblasted ME, if I remember correctly. Not the other way around)

Actually, since the speed of the target is known it can be, and was by Brister, easily used to generate a real world 3D image. That is right at tabA/slotB stuff. And the speed of the shot relative to the target pretty much makes the pattern board a picture of what the target sees.

over and out

Dr.WtS

To HOmerOid: Don't flatter yourself that anyone would "stalk" you. You're of no significance, just annoying. Walking west until your hat floats would solve the problem for the board.

Might be easier to just wait on the 3 old stogies to die.

My Dear Dr.,

I bow to your expertise and knowledge having you surely perused Mr. Brister's
works, which I have not.

I also tend to imagine that if he went to all that trouble -and his wife's- it was to
render an empirical explanation as near to reality as was possible in his time.

Thank you for your clarification.

JC

Hamilton Booksellers has the second editon of Brister's book on close out for about $9.00 everyone should have a copy. He did the leg work, even got his wife to pull a target behind the family station wagon to test shot string. (I can't see my wife doing it!

Aw, c'mon Tyler. I hear ya'll Alabama boys make your wives HOLD the pattern board and then run'em in to you to look at!

Stan

Wonko has said it all. Except for very long range ninety degree crossing shots at waterfowl, the pattern board shows exactly what the target gets, and sees. I am saving my old Country Squire for the day when my wife will agree to pull the pattern board. Of course, Bob Brister has already done all this work, for those who would take the time and effort to read him. Those who worry about shot stringing in normal shotgunning don't have an understanding of simple arithmetic.

I can't even imagine anyone being so disturbed(mentally) that he would wish any of our members would die! The only thing I've ever done to you is to occasionally point out what an a$$hole you are. There seems to be a fair amount of agreement with that assessment. However, I would never think of hoping you die soon. Just slithering back under your rock would make the board a better place. Many of us ARE old geezers and, in fact, will probably die soon enough. Your wishing to hasten the process for any of us just proves what a despicable creature you truly are. Have a nice day!

Jim I said wait...not "wish".

If'n it's any consolation I hope you die swiftly.....Have a nice day "old geezer".

Joe, you should restrict your posting to the early morning when you may be relatively sober.

You have really outdone yourself here!

JC

Excuse you.

I don't drink...I'm just sick and tired of his continual attacks.

Hum...

Wow, cool thread because of the informative discussion. I'm just new here and i think i will enjoy here.

-------------
cheap scrubs online

If one wants to read the best discussion of Shotstringing ever put into print I recommend a copy of "The Modern Shotgun" by Sir Gerald Burrard. This is Major League work, Brister's is High School in comparsion, I have both & have read & studied both, this is not hearsay.
To sum up Burrard's recommendation was "Unless" you were shooting at birds beyond 40yds, flying faster than 40 MPH & at 90° to shot line, "Ignore" shotstring. "IF" you requirements exceeded these limits, then shoot for a 10% increase in your minimum pattern requirements for the bird in question. Thus if you would have ordinarily figured a need for a 100 pellet hit in the 30" circle, shoot for 110 & forget it (This on your stationary target).
He shot at a large metal plate attached to the side of a vehicle in such a way as to protect the driver, much smarter. It was also found the forward & central portion (The most effective portion) of the "Swarm" of shot was least affected by stringing, this being mostly from the deformed & lagging pellets & those from the outer limits of the pattern. He also found virtually no diference in shotstringing between the conventional British game load of 1 1/16oz & a heavier 1¼oz load, though these obviously had a differt length of column in the bore. Using these two charge wts in the 12ga for comparsion a 20 ga would have virtually identical column lengths using 3/4 & 7/8 oz respectifully.
The main thing brought to light by Brister was that modern plastic wads, super hard shot, & buffer mat'l could eliminate a lot of the deformed shot effectively bringing them into the main pattern.
One item on buffering, Brister spoike quite highly of ordinary Flour as a buffering agent. This was later shown by Don Zutz that under some conditions flour could cake & adhere to the case walls resulting in decidedly "Dangerous" chamber pressures. Do not be tempted to try this for the purpose of enhancing patterns.

Not too sure what this will add to this thread but if you look carefully you can see the shot load out of my punt gun.


This may show it clearer



For what it's worth it killed the oil drum very cleanly!!!!

I actually thought about this thread the other day when I found this article...

Interesting stuff...

http://www.billhanusbirdguns.com/archive29.html

Hey Phideaux how did that new BSS work on those doves???

The BSS worked fine. I can't say so much for my shooting, but the ole Browning functioned like a juggernaut. It killed birds quite well. I was shooting 7/8 oz of 8's. I've read most of the archives over at Bill Hanus's site and he's a big fan of small shot at a little quicker than usual velocity (~1300fps). I figured since I shoot 7.5's most of the time anyway, I'd give that a try. The birds that I did hit were hit hard. I killed maybe 20 birds personally all weekend, maybe 2 I had to dispatch by hand. The rest were dead before they hit the ground or at the very least they died before I got to them. Now I'm a slow walkin' fat man, but I KNOW they didn't die of old age!

Thanks for asking Treblig

I knew you would like that Browning!!!