March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 629 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,014
Members14,391
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
eightbore, Brister makes pretty much the same point in his book. He points out that the same choke/load combination is a handicap at closer ranges. But if you're going to shoot long, you need tight patterns and large shot.

I've done a bit of testing with the new 1500 fps lead loads. In terms of pattern density, they lose in comparison to both the Super-X type loads (3 3/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz, 1330 fps) and the old 1220 fps Super Pigeon loads. I found a slight advantage to the
Super Pigeons over the Super-X, but not very much. I don't know why we have this desire for bigger and faster, because they certainly don't seem to be better.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
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.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 389
Likes: 2
cpa Offline
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 389
Likes: 2
What is the difference in velocity at 50 yards for #4 steel @ muzzle velocity of 1,500 fps vs muzzle velocity of 1,250 fps? How about the same numbers for lead?

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: keith
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.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Originally Posted By: L. Brown

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.


Larry you know that counting all those little pellets and holes only makes sense to a guy with little to no shotgun experience....I was once a hole counter.

Point being that if after shooting enough patterns you can't just tell by looking at them their effectiveness then you need to just throw in the towel.

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,444
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,444
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
....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."....

Thanks for the update Larry. Maybe we've made a bit of progress here, looks like you found a piece two that discussed the significance of lead levels in bone. I saw that snuck in there.

Out of context and quoted in my prefered method, a page back you mentioned, 'the truth regarding the potential danger of spent lead shot to upland birds (or, for that matter, other species of wildlife) is pretty hard to come by'. Short of shooting test patterns, I mean telling about all the sick and dead ducks that you've personally tested and examined. How come you always get the 'good' science on your side?

Thanks again for explaining how your work with waterfowl validates the methodology used in shotshell ballistic testing. I've always said you make some good points. Why bring up comments about standards that you don't hold yourself up to?

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Larry, science that is obviously bad is also something that can be observed by intelligent laymen, although it takes more brains than counting pellets. Maybe it's best that you just stick to your own skill level. But you attempted to discredit craigd and I in the recent Condor thread on the dubious notion that we are not experts in the field of Wildlife Biology. However, when so-called experts are all over the map on something as obvious as what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, eagles or condors... and the stated difference in ppm or mcg/dl is on the order of 20 to 50 times for a lethal dose between so-called "experts"... well it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that something is very fishy in the data being presented, and being used against us.

It is equally fishy when a big time professional outdoors writer such as yourself discounts such obvious discrepancies as some flawed "logic" rather than a valid observation, and attempts to discredit or demonize anyone who questions your equally obvious biases. We provided several glaring examples of flawed or false science, but you couldn't admit that the flawed data you cling to like a security blanket could be wrong. That behavior became even more egregious and laughable when you kept returning to your silly notions about the North Dakota Ground Venison study, which has been TOTALLY discredited by numerous other researchers including those in your own Iowa Fish and Game Agency. It has been known that the North Dakota study was flawed since before 2008. I kept dropping hints so you could check it out instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself. But you keep pushing that tired old dog to hunt. You, who was hiding behind the fact that craigd and I were not so-called "experts" was repeatedly showing us his own extreme prejudice and lack of knowledge or expertise. That's why I was happy to drag the discussion out rather than just hit you with all of your errors at once. Too bad the thread got locked. Read this, especially paragraph 9, and get to work on those powers of observation instead of just regurgitating crap:

https://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/leadcap1008.pdf

Originally Posted By: 2-piper
larry;
I think you are totally confusing "High Pressure" with "High Back Thrust". What these guns you mentioned were Beefing up for was the higher ballistics of a heavy shot load at a higher velocity, not necessarily meaning a higher pressure.
3½ drams of bulk smokeless or 28 grains of Infallible or Ballistite pushing 1¼ oz of shot were not low pressure loads.
True these weren't the "Normal" but they may have been used far more often than we tend to imagine.
Max peak pressure is simply not the whole story in internal shotgun ballistics. 1 oz of shot @1 200 FPS with 10K PSI simply does not stress the actin as much as 1¼ oz @1300 fps with 9K psi, even though the pressure is lower for the heavier load.


Speaking of your lack of expertise, I was surprised you didn't go on and on for several days with Miller over the correction he gave you in the post above 5 days ago. Have you finally learned that Miller doesn't back down when he's right and you are wrong? Drew posts early smokeless shotshell pressures here all the time, while you mentioned vague unnamed contemporary sources that happened to be wrong, if they really even existed. Maybe you should try exercising your excellent powers of observation and leave the ballistics discussions to those who can do more than count pellets and holes in paper made by a single shotgun.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Keith and Craig, if you want to continue to discuss the lead shot issue, please start a new topic so as not to derail this one. And as I have pointed out to you two--repeatedly--if the lead ban for waterfowl was based on junk science, then there ought to be SOME CONTRARIAN SCIENCE. That is, studies by scientists that actually dispute all the stuff you guys call "junk". Please note, once again, that when it comes to climate change, there are scientists who dispute the concept of man-made global warming. And have said so. I find it hard to believe that while there are scientists who will challenge global warming, you guys haven't come up with any who will challenge the lead ban for waterfowl as junk science. Yet you keep trying to present yourselves as the Mr. Wizards and Dr. Spocks of the lead poisoning world. If "laymen" like you guys can dispute what you see as not being logical about the lead shot ban, then is it logical to think that no scientists--apparently not a single one, based on the lack of evidence you've come up with--would have spotted the same inconsistencies upon which you reach your "junk science" conclusions? Gosh . . . you guys aren't just smarter than most of those trained and experienced in the field of wildlife biology and science. You think you're smarter than ALL of them! Don't hurt your arms patting yourselves on the back. And please do come back . . . once you've found ONE SINGLE CONTRARIAN SCIENTIST who agrees with you that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. You've been given that homework assignment before, and you keep coming back empty-handed. Guess your grade of "incomplete" will have to stand. I'm done with you, until you come up with the "beef".

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,444
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,444
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
....Craig....please start a new topic so as not to derail this one....

....you keep trying to present yourselves as the Mr. Wizards and Dr. Spocks of the lead poisoning world....

No problem Larry.

Earlier, I felt kind of bad bringing up 7 1/2 shot, but Stan triggered good memories. So, I had to interject myself, non scientifically about long gone good ole days. My mistake, I wasn't called out by name.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Larry, I told you in the locked Condor thread that there is lots of contrarian science that effectively disputes much of the junk science that was used to advance the 1991 Federal Lead Shot Ban, and subsequent lead ammo bans in California and elsewhere. However, if they don't come right out in the abstract and say that the purpose of their research is specifically to debunk the Lead Shot Ban for Waterfowl, it just doesn't meet your standards for excellence. But you were also stuck on using selective editing of the Audobon statement on sport hunting, and defending junk like your precious North Dakota Ground Venison study, in order to support your erroneous notions about waterfowl and the lead bullets used by deer hunters. We never got past that and your childish demands for what is readily available with little effort. What little we gave you was dismissed out of hand and I'm pretty sure you are still clinging to your preconceived notions. You also didn't show us any BEEF, and you refused to acknowledge glaring examples of absolute garbage. It was easier to discredit craigd and myself than to admit you might be wrong. You demanded BEEF when you repeatedly showed us that you weren't even capable of digesting Pablum. The contrarian science on lead ammunition is out there Larry, but you won't acknowledge it when it hits you right between the eyes. Don't bother grading my performance Larry. I've seen your own abysmal performance when it comes to selective editing, putting words in my mouth which I never said, denying your own words, and attempting to discredit anyone who points out your errors. I happen to think you derailed this topic because you are not a ballistics expert. Maybe YOU should start another thread where you can count pellets and holes and promote the work of a guy who claims that ballistically inferior steel is as good or better than lead.

I'm just giving you a dose of your own medicine, and it appears you don't like it.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.963s Queries: 35 (0.048s) Memory: 0.8752 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 07:23:04 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS