doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Square Load

In a recent article in SSM Chris Batha wrote this ............



"It is often said that a 16-gauge carries like a 20 and hits like a 12. This balance of lighter-weight guns and solid hitting power is often credited to the fact that the 16 is a �square load�� a term developed by muzzleloaders for a load in which the shot, powder and wad are the same length as the nominal boring.

The modern 16-gauge cartridge does not conform to the muzzleloading axiom in overall length, but the depth of the shot column of a 1-ounce load does still closely match the nominal boring of .662″. (As a quick review: It takes 16 lead balls of .662″ to make one pound, and there are 16 ounces in one pound.) The logic holds that a square load maximizes the shot charge with the least pellet deformation from shot-column depth, thus resulting in an optimally powerful and even pattern for the gauge."



While I have read about the "square load' most of my life I have never seen the reference to it having been used in muzzleloading days to mean the overall length of the entire load of powder, wad and shot. I have always understood it to mean that the shot payload alone was the same depth as width, or, the same distance from top to bottom as the bore diameter.

How in the world could an entire load of powder, wad and shot be the same height as the bore diameter, unless it was a very anemic load? I suspect Batha is wrong about that, but am open to references from you all. What say ye?

SRH

I think he is referring to the shot, powder, and wad individually. Each alone is equal to the bore diameter.

IMHO, this is one of those old wives tales that just won't die. It is completely irrelevant with the advent of choke, and petaled shot cups. Even with cylinder bored muzzleloaders, most shooters find that thinner (i.e. lighter) wads produce better patterns, as opposed to stacking them up just to match the bore diameter.

I suppose it is a good place to start for experimentation though, making adjustments to produce the best results.

If that is what he meant he did not make that clear, for me at least. He should have inserted "each" between "are" and "the".

I really don't think that is what he meant, Flintfan. Look at the first sentence in the second paragraph, where he mentions "overall length" of a shot shell not conforming to "the muzzleloading axiom in overall length". Sounds like he is talking about the length of the entire load to me.

SRH

Stan;
More hogwash than anything has been printed on the Square Load theory. I do think what Batha was citing there though was not that the entire load was equal to the bore diameter but rather that each component of it was. Thus in the 16 gauge the "Black Powder" charge would have occupied a space in the bore of .662". There would then have been .662" of wadding & a shot charge which also occupied a length of .662". Total length of the load would thus have ben .662" x 3 or 1.986" In a shell with a very low base wad this load should fit in a normal early 2 9/16" 16 gauge hull. Fly in the ointment though is that by the definition that a square load is one in which the length of column is equal to its diameter is an ounce of shot in a nominal .662" bore will stack up to around .837" long, well beyond the length for a square lo0ad which would be some where between 3/4oz and 13/16oz.
One "Noted" writer in an article I once read was touting the 28 as being great beyond all comparison to other gauges because of its square load. He then defined a square load as one in which the shot charge weighed the same as the round ball which fit the bore ( Actually a round ball equivelent load not a square one). He correctly stated this could be found by dividing 16 by the gauge number. He then went totally off the wall by saying 16/28 = .57 thus proving that a 3/4oz load made a perfect square load in the 28. Now even an old Tennessee Redneck HillBilly like me knows that .57 & .75 (3/4) AIN't the same.
A true Square Load in the 28 would be around 7/16oz. Personally I pay no attention to whether the load is square or not. Loads of 1 1/8oz in 12, 15/16oz in 16 & 13/16oz in 20 all stack up to approximately the same length. All can shoot great, none are square. Using 1�oz as the base in the 12 gauge a 16 with same length column would carry about a 32nd over an ounce & the 20 about 7/8oz, all still good loads again none of them square.

I don't pay any attention to the idea of square loads, either. I have always used equal volumes of black powder and shot in my m/l doubles, but never tailored them to bore diameter. I was always more concerned with trying to get those cylinder bored muzzles to hold that load of shot tighter. Never was able to help it much, though.

I was really more concerned with what Batha meant with his reference to the entire load.

Thanks, SRH

The 'Oxford comma' rears it's head in a gun rag.

There was a recent legal case that pivoted on that.

Not the stupid 'square load', but the Oxford comma.

I prefer a round load.

I have believed that a square load is shot and powder measured with the same dipper???

bill

That method of loading should be simply referred to as an Equal Volume loading. Then there is the round ball equivalent loading & finally the Square Load. The square load is as stated one in which the length of the shot column in the bore is equal to its diameter. Thus a cross sectional view of the charge taken longitudinal will appear square in a drawing. That's all there is to it. I see no evidence that ammo loaders have ever followed the Square principal. What they followed was a load in which the column was very close to the same in all the gauges which "Fit" the burning rate of available powders. About as close to square as you will get is 1 1/16oz in 12ga & 1�oz in 10.All smaller gauges were normally loaded "Heavier" than square. Stepping up to the 8 gauge a square load would be bit under 1 5/8oz. This gauge was normally heavily built, had long barrels to burn a coarse powder & was often loaded with quite heavy loads.
the square load is for the most part & accidental occurrence & generally will only fall within light loads in the 12 & 10.
Of far more importance is a "Balanced" load which matches shot weight with powder burn rate. Shot loads took a turn upward in the 1920's with the introduction of progressive burning powders. Coarse Black Powder was slow enough burning that heavier shot loads would have been possible but one was limited by case capacity in the "Breech Loaders" . I do recall in W Greener's book The Gun, 1834 he mentioned loading a 5/8" bore muzzleloader with 1� oz shot. 5/8" would of course be a slightly over bored 20 gauge.
Bottom Line is the best way to treat the "Square Load" is to forget it ever existed, it would appear to be primarily the figment of someone's imagination & never truly existed to begin with.

AMEN! Pick the load for the task at hand let someone else worry about Batha and the Foo King Square and another attempt to justify the stupid 16ga

The Cosmos loves the 12ga and there is no practical load that does not excel in it

Dr. Wonk. But how do you really feel about the "cock-eyed load"? Now don't hold back

Bob Nichols, Editor, Arms and Ammunition Dept., Field & Stream, Oct 1, 1940:
As regards the 16-gauge, I think the English loaders for a long time recommended 15/16 of an ounce of shot as being about as much as the 16 could handle with "good grace." I still think the 1 1/8-ounce maximum load in the 16-gauge is a cock-eyed load - because I don't see any sense in having the 16-gauge weigh more than 6 pounds - or 6 1/4 pounds at the most - and believe me, the 1 1/8 ounce load in front of 3 drams equivalent modern smokeless powder is just too heavy in recoil for the 6-pound gun.

Drew -

Light guns - who GAF? A 12ga can be built lighter than anyone wants to shoot and probably perform better than any other ga in the process.
Of course there is that segment of the crowd that insists on doing things the difficult and stupid way so the other gauges are there for them. Just because a pheasant can be killed with a .410 doesn't mean a rational person sees that as the way it should be done. Etc.

I always thought a Square Load meant that the Height of just the shot column in a shell was equal to the width of the inside diameter of the shell case.So if viewed from the side in a clear plastic shell, the lead shot would look square, as in height & width.
cheers
ooops, just like Millers post of above
franc

Of all the Hype I have read over the years on the Square load I have as of yet to see evan an attempt at a logical explanation as to why this should make a more efficient load. Seems everyone who Exalts it "Blames" its use on the English. To the best of my knowledge neither Greener or Burrard mentioned it, so perhaps comes from some more obscure writer or from a later date.
I will say that if I desired to shoot a 1oz load, which I have on many occasions, I would much prefer to shoot it from either a 12 or 16 than from a 28 gauge. My reasoning here is the shorter column in the larger bores should result in a more efficient pattern without the necessity of all premium components.
Some of the best shooting I ever did in my life for upland hunting which included quail, some woodcock & rabbits being chased by beagles was using a 12ga @ 6lb 14oz using a low velocity, a bit over 1100 fps, 1oz load. The gun was a damascus J P Clabrough sidelock, pressure of the load was given in the manual as about 8K, never saw much need for a lower pressure. I like to keep- the max pressure as close to the breech as possible on the older guns which means faster powders & then load down to desired max.

I picked the load for the task at hand and used(for years) 1 1/4 oz. #2 shot(short magnum)in a 16 ga O/U with 60 cm cyl/cyl barrels for Hare and 1 1/8 oz #8 in the same barrels for partridge; with complete satisfaction. These would not be "square loads" at all. The 16 ga is not "stupid", it is wonderful.

The only thing I remember being square was shot designed to spread out more. It was available in Europe years ago (Belgian I think) and not necessarily in 16ga. Years ago Orvis used to offer discus shaped pellets in loaded shells. I like my 16ga it carries like a 12 but recoils like a 20. Not bad at all.

Chris Batha brought Vintagers Order back to Great Britain from USA .

The 'square' concept keeps coming back periodically because the rags have pages to fill up.

There's an interesting discussion online from 2007 'at another shotgun related site' as it were, easily found with a search, between Wakeman and Lopez. It sums up the debate for those interested.

Personally, I find the biggest variable as far as performance to be shot hardness. An extreme example was trying hit anything with Rio 410 shells. That is as dismal a factory load as can be found. Sure enough, they contain (or did at the time, about 8 years ago) what can only be drop shot.


If there really is a 'gauge' that performs better than it has any right, it's not the 16 or 28.... it's the 410 (with good shells), and that's about as 'over-square' as can be.

Just today at a doctor's office read a blurb in an outdoor magazine about a Benelli 28ga with 3" chambers. Fiocchi is loading shells in that length with 1 oz of shot. the writer said he & several others had carried these on a 3 day pheasant hunt & regularly killed pheasants at a "Verified" 60-70 yards. He didn't state the size of shot they were using. Personally I sort of took that with a "Grain of Salt"
I have shot 1� oz of shot at approximately 1100 fps from a sub 6lb, by a couple of ounces, 16gauge with no ill affects. I would not want to shoot it in a high volume situation though. I currently have 5 16 gauge guns. One is a H&A single, three are doubles & one is a hammer drilling in 16x16x9.3-72R. The sub 6 lp'er is a Halifax by Darne with double proof, the double are a Baker Black Beauty & an H grade Lefever Arms Co. The drilling is a Miller & Val Greiss. I see nothing at all wrong with a good 16 but have little time for anything smaller than a 20.
Never saw anything out of either the 28 or .410 which would not be expected of them. Fact is it is not hard at all to have a 30 yd gun, but every 5 yards you add keeps taking More & More & MORE.

Those are two, er, "robust" loads for use in a 16, ain't they? I use an ounce in a 12 a lot of the time.
I never hunted true hares, unless those long front legged rabbits that you see in southern MN count, but, prefered a .22 rimfire rifle for bunnies, when I was into that kind of stuff, before I had my own dogs that I try to teach some manners to.
I don't honestly know if I have ever fed a 16 a bigger load than 1 oz. I found some 1 1/4 oz Remingtons at a garage sale, but, I'm too chicken to light one off in my Nitro Special.


Best,
Ted

I don't hunt with a .410 Miller, I'm just not good enough with my 410 Uggie, and I'm not lugging a 7 pound target gun just to shoot a 410.

I've shot with some fantastic .410 shooters. They can really score well, even at sporting targets that are not set 'small gauge friendly'.

I shoot mostly skeet with my .410, and frequently am treated with the sight of a target just getting hammered as if by a 12 gauge load. Sometimes I pull the shell out, admire it, and say 'really?'.

Yes, they aren't that far away and even with a 410 it's a high average game, but it sure is fun. It still makes me chuckle, and the first target of the day when changing to the 410 is still a pleasant shock... 'Where the recoil at?'.

I can see value in the sguare load when loading a muzzle loader.
Simply because of only needing to have one measure on the person, which does both powder & shot.
There are enough other bits & bobs to carry beside 2 measures.
O.M

When I shoot my M/L shotgun I always use the same measure for the shot & powder. Can't say as I ever shot a "Square Load" from it though. What I shot was an Equal Volume load. A square load in my particular gun would have fallen about half way between 1 1/8oz & 1 3/16oz. What I normally shot was an even ounce.
The equal volume loading can be used with whatever shot charge you desire, the Square Load is confined to a shot charge which has a column length equal to its diameter & Absolutely /nothing to do with the powder charge, which could be black, bulk or dense smokeless.

Ted Schefelbein,
They are robust, but work for me. They were European hare, on drive hunts. If I showed up with a 22 rifle, I would be invited to leave and got come back. I always used 1 1/8 oz loads, as far back as high school, in my Sweet 16, 26" inp/cyl. That was back when I could still follow a dog. I would carry the 16 to school, ride home with my cousin, on his school bus; and he, I, his brother, and a dog named Streak would hunt Bobwhite until my mother got off from work and came to pick me up. My cousin would make fun of my little 16, he used a 12. I shot the 1 1/8 oz load, and he shot 1 oz. Which one was little?
Mike

Just because an idea is old does not mean it is antiquated. The concept of square load is not based on theory but theorem. It refers "only" to the load: length equals width. (Height is the term used to describe the high point of projectile travel.)

The square load concept is entirely true because it is a basic starting point for ballistic efficiency. The shot load is acted upon as one entity and for all practical purposes is considered one projectile. For it to perform best, the center of mass has to equal the center of gravity. It is therefore a point found by the intersection of diagonals of equal length, which must be found in the square. If a shot charge performs better or worse than the square load for any given gauge, it is because there are external variables applied.

By example, I could relate that I once had a cheap 16 gauge patent shotgun which was the best long range gun that I ever used. In it I shot the cheapest Federal 2.5 dr./eq. 1 oz. Game Loads, reputed to have very soft shot. On doves, the gun was deadly to 85 yards. Was the square load, the secret of success? No. There were other factors at work. The barrel on that cheap gun was made under the supervision of Harry Pope, reputed to be the best rifle smith of the early 20th Century. And the shells were loaded with slow powder. When Federal substituted hotter powder a few years later, the gun started dusting birds. All of these are external variables. But in shotgun ballistics a square load is always an optimum starting point.

Old Hercules & later Alliant handloaders manua;s gave the length of 1 oz of shot in the various. They did not stipulate the shot hardness or size. I am going to stick my neck out a bit & assume it was ordinary chilled shot of a size around 7� to 8 as these are sizes loades by a lot of target shooters for which reloading has been quite popular.
The column length for 1oz in the 16 gauge was .837". A 16 is .662" in diameter, give or take a bit of manufacturing tolerance.
Quite obviously the 1 oz load did not give superior results in you 16 because it was Square, because it is in fact (.837/.662 = 1.264 ) 26%+ OUT OF SQUARE.
About the only loads which have ever been factory loaded close to square are 1 1/16 oz in 12ga & 1� oz in 10 ga.
The 3/4 oz load in a 28 gauge which is so highly touted as having Near Magical abilities has a length of around 220% its diameter. 1.212L/.550D
Even the � oz load in a .410 is 266% times its diameter. 1oz = 2.18" � 2 for � oz =1.09. 1.09/.41 = 2.6585
These are of course subject to small variations due to actual alloy &/or shot size.
I cannot truly say if I ever shot an actual Square Load in my life. As long as I picked a reasonable load & shot size for the game at hand & THEN POINTED THE GUN IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION I never had a problem with those Skewed Out of Square loads killing anything.
A square load in the 10 is actually 1.27oz ( would be a bit lighter with larger size shot normally associated with the 10), a 12 = 1.0565oz (close aplenty to 1 1/16oz), the 16 = .790oz (25/32+), the 20 = .634oz (5/8+), the 28 = .455oz (7/16+ & the .410 = .189oz (3/16oz).
There are your Square loads, how many folks you reckon shoot them??

The fact that you or I have not done something does not keep physics from being fact. All that is necessary to make a shot column square is to add or remove shot. THAT load would have the highest ballistic coefficient and perform most uniformly. It does so because at the moment of ignition the load reacts as a solid. Lengthening or shortening the shot column alters stability. The fact that a square load is equaled or out performed by any other load is because of external variables.

Some rather interesting physics there VF.

Center of mass and center of gravity are the same unless a gravity gradient is involved, like in outer space.

A single projectile that is only as long as it is wide has very poor external ballistics.

None of that is relevant to shotguns at all, as an 'optimum' or otherwise.

The 'square load' is the ballistic equivalent of astrology.

Re post 854, a shot charge never acts as a solid.

From the moment of ignition, set back and deformation commence. The shot charge shortens under acceleration do to compression of the shotcup petals and the malleability of lead.

When the charge hits the chamber cone, it lengthens behaving more like a fluid than a solid.

It lengthens again at the choke, if there is one.

'Ballistic coefficient' is meaningless within the bore, and only relevant to individual projectiles once bore exit occurs.

In the twelve, 7/8th. to 1 oz. loads seem pretty popular. Once a bit of bore diameter is lost for the thickness of the wad, those could be the mythical square shot column. I always thought the 'square' was sort of a rule of thumb balancing volume and the concept of fluid flow through the barrel with respect to flyers that blow the pattern, but I doubt it matters much.

Generally speaking the inside of the shell is larger than the nominal bore so the column will actually be a bit shorter prior to entering the bore proper. "IF" the thickness of the shot collar inside resulted in a diameter of the bore of about .715" then 1 oz would be square. I have quite successfully fired 1oz of shot from 12, 16 & 20 gauges, a favorite shot load for me over the years for my hunting. Obviously it is not square in all of them but it just never bothered me.
The fit & feel of the gun seemed to always have a lot more to do with my
hit-a-bility than did the gauge or whether the load was Square or Skewed.

Ted, unless your Sotan jacks are different than the ones we have in Iowa, where they really differ from a cottontail is long BACK legs.

Re the 16, my first classic double was a pre-WWII Sauer in that gauge. Had the chambers punched (before I knew better), and shot a large pile of pheasants with it--the vast majority with the high brass 1 1/8 oz loads. I wasn't into weighing guns back then, but I'm sure my Sauer was under Mr. Greener's recommended rule of 96 weight for that particular load. Would not have wanted to shoot a round of trap or skeet with those.

I killed a 25# gobbler with a 1 1/4 oz 16ga "magnum" out of an old Stevens sxs. Shot a few of those--very few--at pheasants. Decidedly unpleasant, mainly because--once I did start weighing guns--I seldom owned a 16ga double that weighed more than 6 1/2#.

For those who prefer simpler math, I've seen many vintage writers tout the 16 based on the fact that the standard 1 oz load is the same as the weight of a solid lead ball that will fit in the barrel. Doesn't work so well for the other gauges.

Another Hogwarts dropout
Ballistic coefficient inside a barrel?
Stability??? Oh, puhleeeze

"For those who prefer simpler math, I've seen many vintage writers tout the 16 based on the fact that the standard 1 oz load is the same as the weight of a solid lead ball that will fit in the barrel."

Which is simply a coincidence based on the specific gravity of lead, and nothing further.

It is very likely that the square load theory was developed by a mathematician and not a shooter. Equal length and width of a charge is a reference point for optimum stability. While stability may be poor, it is still better than any other. If it is not, point out the superior relationship.

It is just as easy to say that a solid lead wadcutter bullet has set back, deforms, and acts as a FLUID while moving down the length of a smoothbore barrel. It still has a predetermined weight and a balanced center of mass. All of the other factors offered are external... particularly choke coning.

Unlike others here, I never watched Harry Potter. But if you have a fluid charge or a solid charge that is more stable than square, this is the time to trot it out.

I seem to shoot better with green shells.

While I still shoot poorly with green shells, green shells are still better than any other.

If they are not, point out the superior color.

True. But probably as valid, as far as the effects of that simple math on the efficiency of the load, as more complicated formulae.

For those interested in the math the volume of a sphere is Pi x D cube / 6.
For a cylinder having a length equal to its diameter it is Pi x D cube / 4.
The cylinder thus has 1� times the volume of the sphere.
"However" the sphere is solid with no air space, the cylinder filled with shot has a lot of air space around the individual pellets. It works out the normal "Square Load", dependant upon exact shot size & alloy, but still talking predominantly lead, has a weight of around 75% - 80% that of the pure lead sphere by which the gauge was determined.
There has never been a shotgun built, regardless of gauge, in which the round ball equivelent & the "Square Load" were of identical weight. It is essentially impossible with any shot size of a useful nature.Not sure how small one would have to go, but likely even smaller than the #12's used in some .22LR "Rat Loads".

Mike,
Makes perfect sense in an A5. Thanks for the clarification. I have but one 16 remaining, and while few would refer to a Nitro as "sveldt", I doubt it weighs 6 1/2 lbs with 26" tubes. My scale went in the trash, and I have yet to replace it.

I find myself a bit sensitive to recoil here on the north side of the 50 years of age mark. Still not in a hurry to use that garage sale box of 1 1/4oz 6s in 16 in my little double.

I killed lots of bunnies with a .22 as a young man. Usually on public ground, sometimes following a friends Basset Hound, best bunny dog ever. But, that was here, not in Europe, and it was a long time ago. No one would have looked at us as anything out of the ordinary while we were involved in said pursuit.

Sorry you aren't up to following the dogs, so to speak. A good friend went into assisted living this week, I do hope to die with my boots on, but, one never knows.

Good luck.


Best,
Ted

A cylinder of equal volume to a sphere of the same diameter will be a good bit shorter than it is wide.

Not that it matters in a shotgun sense. None of this does.

When it comes to solids intended to fire out of a gun barrel, I'd look for a shape that looks more like a Berger boat tail than a square. Supposedly, if a bit of something like water is allowed to fall through the air, it assumes the most stability in the shape of a teardrop. Someone formed the cross section of a square in the shot column before it's fired, it didn't settle into a square because it's less stable in another shape.

Well, now I understand how important it all is because ...... the highest score I ever shot at sporting was a 99/100 at a charity shoot. The shells were provided which, in 12 ga., were 1 1/16 oz. loads, the proverbial square load. Now I know why.

How can you argue with that?

SRH

Stir the pot Stan.....

Were they green?

I wish I could remember what brand those shells were. Maybe Rios? I just cannot remember the brand or, the most important thing, .......... the color.

SRH

Well, yeah....

Sheesh.

What is truly significant is the "square loads' are substantially cheaper than "round? loads". For example 25 pack of 16ga 1oz is about $7 while 1&1/8oz or 1&1/4 is $12 or $13 or more depending on manufacturer and country of origin. While I don't shoot 12ga anymore I think the difference between 1oz and 1&1/4 is about $6 or $7 which is very, very large indeed. I'm not mentioning old Euro 12ga game load of 1&1/16 simply because unless you use specialty ammo or foreign make (usually English) it simply isn't readily available. You can look forward to more "square load" users.

Over the years I have concluded that most writers praising the square load have not the foggiest idea what it actually weighs for any given gauge.
Also they nearly always give the British credit for it.
Fact of the matter is the 12ga 1 1/16oz load came about as an act of parliament & not by a ballistician. 1 1/8oz had been settled on as the Standard game gun load. When WWI began for the savings in lead Parliament restricted the load to 1 1/16oz. This resulted in a savings of 1 pound of lead for every 256 shells loaded. Aft6er the war with the restriction lifted many stayed with the load as they liked the reduced recoil, though some went back to 1 1/8oz. I seriously doubt its being square or not had any bearing on either choice.

Another writer advancing the knowledge of ballistic science:


"Hollinger mentions an English shotgun writer who took chronograph readings of heavy field loads and light field loads. �At 30 yards, the shot string from the heavy loads was 25-30 feet long!� he exclaims. �There�s a lot of room for a pheasant to fly through a 30-foot shot string and only take a couple of pellets.�

Aha. Everyone who�s spent time in a duck blind recalls a crippled duck floundering around in the decoys, and someone stands up to shoot it and finish the job. �The distance between the first pellet and last pellet striking the water is sometimes a very long way,� I noted. �Is that what you mean?� �Exactly,� Hollinger says."


"Look Charlie Brown, the snow is coming up out of the ground!"

Another interesting thing to consider is that the 'gauge' system is entirely arbitrary, and that 'pounds and ounces' don't have any correlation with natural phenomenon.

Had we used kilograms instead, a 16 would then be a 35 gauge and use about 28 grams of shot. Nobody would find stars aligning using those numbers.

The whole gauge thing really is a silly way to arrive at a design bore size. We get strange and arbitrary bore sizes like .550, .615, .662, .729.

Would not millimeters have been better? Or round inch fractions?

We could instead have a 17MM shotgun, and go up or down a couple MM at a time for the others. Or perhaps 1/2", 5/8", 11/16", 3/4".

We are wedded to the lead sphere only by tradition.

Ted,
I'm not bothered by the recoil( even in a "svelt" Heym O/U 60cm barreled gun)nearly as much as stumbling around trying not to fall. In my younger days, I also took my share of "bunnies" with .22s(rifle and pistol)as well as .38 and .45. I also took a few Hare with .22 mag. insert barrel in a drilling, when the deer didn't come. I always liked to carry a pistol that complemented the long gun, rather than duplicate it, the insert barrel filled that role. Being on the north side of 70, I can say with some authority that there are a lot more than 10 years between 60 and 70 years old. I wish I had 30 year old legs again.
Mike

Totally ridiculous! I cannot even imagine where that originated but it certainly has nothing to do with math or physics or botany or geology or ............

and that shot string drivel - man, that is one mother fast bird!

In his most excellent work "The Modern Shotgun" Burrard reported virtually no difference in the length of shot string from the ordinary 1 1/16oz load & a 1�oz load. He also found shot string to be of no consequence unless three conditions were met;
1 - The Shot was made @ more than 40 yards
2 - The target was moving faster than 40 miles per hour
3 - The target was moving at 90� to the shot line.

Shot string might thus be of importance if one was passing shooting 60 yd geese. For 99.9% of upland gunning & clays shooting it can be Ignored or Forgotten.

Many years ago I bought a book at garage sale entitled Shotgunning The Art & the Science. If one has lots of time on their hands there is section in there where one person drives automobile dragging target behind it and second one shooting at the target later examining effect of shot stringing. Not bad place to start if one wants to learn about common topics in shotgunning.

I believe you're refering to Bob Brister's book, it does make a good read. I can't imagine my wife driving a family station wagon as I shot at targets. That had to be one dedicated wife.
Karl

In that article I blundered upon and quoted, that both interviewee and interviewer would agree that the long shot fall stripe observed when shooting at the ground at a shallow angle is caused by 'shot string' is a perfect example how complete nonsense gets propagated generation to generation.

Just last year at the local club I heard the whopper about Damascus barrels unwinding like a cardboard tube. That guy 'witnessed it'.

A late season dove shoot will provide all three of those criteria very easily, and often. With a small target to boot.

SRH

And you better ignore/forget about it. If you doubt your equipment or skill level, you'll miss.

Confidence is a big part of shooting well.

As my old 'friend' Joe told everyone within earshot, "If you're in front you have a chance. If you're behind, you have no chance".

Which is pretty good advise from a liar and a cheat. It may be the only true thing he ever said.

Yes, that is the book. Not a bad book for shotgun shooter to read. Lots of good info in there.

Stan;
Yes some of those shots at late season doves could for sure exceed the three criteria.
I am though of the personal opinion that shot stringing has been blown way out of proportion to its actual affect on efficient shooting. As I recall figures show that at least 75% of the shot are in the front half of the string. Assume you start with a shot string 12 feet long at 40 yards & with some of the shot sleeves and/or buffers you reduce it to 10 feet. This is a reduction in length of more than 16%. This however in no way means you have a 16% more effective load. That last two feet of the string likely contained no more than 5% of the charge. They were the badly deformed laggards & flarers which were ineffective. These shot have been brought forward into the pattern but that important front half of the string has likely not been increased by any significant amount, but a string reduction of 16% does indeed make good advertizing.
When those three conditions are exceeded about all we can really do is "Use Enough Gun". This is why under those late season conditions you leave your beloved .410's at home & take more gun.

Figure out how long a time it takes for a 25' shot string to pass a single point at say 1000fps. Then calc how far a 40mph target travels in that same time.

then tell me again how that affects your shooting results

Maybe, a long shot string can not pass through a single, or similar, point. Maybe it's stringing because the stragglers are traveling slower. If a low angle shot is taken at a cripple on the water, does it look like a string on the water because all the shot in the string continues to the same point of impact, or is slower shot falling out of the back end of the string sooner than the lead shot in a string.

Some here seem to prefer ridicule over pertinent information. The dynamics of smoothbore shot is not a new topic. To believe that only modern information or personal experience is valid, proves the height of arrogance. Our ancestors exerted much more diligent study of the topic than is currently being employed... and they were quite educated.

Benjamin Robins wrote the "New Principles of Gunnery" in 1742.
He was a MATHEMATICIAN who revolutionized our understanding of ballistics. His work was based on Newton's principles, pendulum testing, and gunnery fire. His most important contribution was proof that a BALANCED load exceeded all others. He also addressed the FLUID nature of burning gunpowder moving a solid,
and the relationship of the MASS of a load to the bore.

There is much to be learned from old gunning treatises, including the fact that a load longer than the width of the barrel "Flew like a brick," which they knew, because they actually shot bar loads.

The square load is a point of reference, much like the center of a circle or the value of zero. Here is a link for anyone interested in studying testing which infers a principle.

The rest of you can find the same thing by shooting various lengths of cigarette filter with a rubber band. Wonko get someone to help you measure.


http://arc.id.au/RobinsOnBallistics.html

25 feet would be a pretty long string. Brister points out that at short range and slow target speed, string isn't much of a concern. On the other hand, he shows a 13 foot string at 40 mph and 50 yards from a magnum load of 4's. Of course these days, waterfowlers have less of a concern with string, because they're nearly all shooting steel or something as hard or harder that doesn't string much.

craigd:

It's easy to see the actual dynamics.

1. Make a circle with your thumb and forefinger, like the 'OK' sign.

2. Extend a finger of the other hand behind it, so you see mostly the center knuckle.

3. Now tilt the finger so when you view it through the circle you see all of the finger from tip to bottom knuckle.

The circle is your pattern and the laying down finger is the ground.

It's simple as that, and has nothing to do with time of arrival of the shot pellets.

I believe what you are saying is true. I wasn't referring to the time of arrival, just the different arc the flight of a slower shot would take as compared to the flatter arc of the generally higher velocity shot. I believe it was mentioned earlier that maybe 75% of the shot tended to be towards the front of the string.

Back to your explanation, a shot charge with zero stringing would show the same impact pattern against a flat angled surface. But, I think the duck on the water example was brought up because it's a way to visualize a shot string, not a two dimensional pattern spread at an angle. Then again, Larry mentioned likely short shot strings with notox loads, and it may have been a bit since some of us have had a chance to shoot lead at ducks.

If they clear the muzzle at the same velocity, there must be a change in velocity between individual shot to string the pattern, and I'm thinking usable pattern, not flyers outside of the pattern.

In the past I disagreed with Wonko and believed that. Brister was a good final word on the issue with his neat truck pulled targets.

That said having read A.C. Jones in depth and using modelling software have come to the conclusion except in extreme case shot stringing is not the issue I once believed it to be. The effect is negligible.

1. The speed of the load except at extreme ranges (40 plus)
2. The angle of gunner to target (rarely a prefect 90 degrees in hunting situations)
3. The actual speed of the bird (while a bird maybe capable of 40 or whatever MPH it does not as a rule always fly at max speed)
4. The differences in shot string are not as pronounced when shooting the appropriate load for the given gauge (7/8 -20ga, 1-16ga, 1 1
/8 12ga
5. While a shot string does have some speedier at the front and slower at the rear pellets the core of the string is relative to the overall not that long

The value I see in the square load is that it helps you not overload a properly weighted game gun in a particular gauge (say 1 oz in a 6lb 16ga) with a shot load whose recoil will beat you to death.

The old 96:1 ratio of gun to shot weight is still a better determination for controlling recoil than the square load. With the square load in a 16 being only .79 oz the 96 ;1 ratio would give you a gun of 4 3/4 lbs. If one plans on using 1 oz loads the the Ratio gives a 6 lb gun weight, far more comfortable with continuous use of ounce loads.
I really failed to see anything at all in the above link which was much applicable to shotguns. Also it would seem that even Black Gunpowder improved a lot over the next decades of use. 1000 atmospheres (14,700 psi) was stated to be the maximum achievable pressure in a closed cell vessel. Some 100 years after this was written sporting shotguns were proofed at a higher pressure, with black gunpowder, than this & it wasn't done under a closed cell situation either.

PS; This has been an interesting thread, glad you posted your question Stan. I hope we answered it sufficiently to the fact the writer of the article just didn't word it good & that it should have applied to each component of the load & not the entire load

There are also 20-25 yard shots available on late season doves, Miller. The man who uses a .410 effectively in the field understands it's limits and does not stretch them. I kill limits of late season doves with my .410s, but the emphasis is on decoying and camouflage. It just usually takes a little longer because late season doves are much more wary and tenacious of life.

SRH

I agree the rule of 96:1 is a good one. I do not posit the square load as it is commonly defined is a good is a great rule save an unintended side effect of not overloading you gun

Do not agree with your definition of a square load in common parlance. It is attune to 7/8 in 20, 1 in 16 etc.

Do agree the square load is hogwash as an idea of some sort of magic.

My point is it does little harm if it keeps people from overloading their particular gauge of gun.

One man's 'overload' is another man's 'perfect' load.

When we used to shoot 32 yard trap for money the loads were known to be just a tad over square. Reason? It won.

I used to launch 1 3/8 oz. of plated #5 at 1330 fps for ducks. Worked well.

I was gonna call it a day on this but the above is just too stupid to pass. 1742 and bar shot? WOW!! I wonder what has happened in the last 400 or so years? Oh, yeah - modern information is bunk and filtered ciggies and rubber bands will tell you everything you need to know. I don't even know what you mean by "point of reference"? For what?
I don't want you to think I'm being facetious. I'm quite serious - you don't have a clue.
As far as measuring goes, vollyfire should get someone familiar with calcs in the low two digits to assist him in figuring his IQ.

The point here is that I can explain it to you, vollyfire, but you're really on your own understanding it since I certainly can't do that for you. Do you think that 500 years from now today's information will be more respected? And the researchers of 2600 even more slack than they are now? Compared to 1742 of course since that is the authenticity baseline we all now know.

And it continues to astound me that none here seem to have any understanding of how a shot column degenerates and the string develops. I suppose I expect too much from a general group that doesn't even understand how a choke restriction functions.

have a nice day

craigd: The pellets actually don't clear the muzzle the at same velocity if any choke is present.

There's a velocity differential at the start.

Even if there is no choke, aerodynamic drag will spread the shot cloud out and introduce speed variations because the pellets initially are not flying in 'clean' air. They influence each other until they get spread out.

Hard pellets deform less, which results in less drag variation pellet to pellet. That's why they shoot tighter and string less.

The effect of shot stringing is both under and overplayed in the literature.

I did the math once and found that on a hard angle trap target at 27 yards handicap, during the time of shot cloud passage the target 'only' moved 3 inches. That's not much, right?

But consider that the target is only a bit over 4 inches wide. It moves almost a whole target diameter during cloud passage!

Does this matter? Not a hell of a lot, but it does reinforce the idea that things happen in 3 dimensions and rather makes the photos of Don Zutz holding a clay target over supposed 'voids' in a 2 dimensional pattern look a little foolish. The target does not experience that 'hole' unless it's glued to the pattern board.

Your nice neat 30" pattern circle becomes a tilted ellipse with eccentricity that increases with both target speed and target deflection, when viewed FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE TARGET.

In the final analysis, it's what the target experiences that matters.

Fascinating discussion.

A quick read of Dr Andrew Jones' on shotgun ballistics simplifies matters. He proves that shotgun patterns are subject to the laws of normal distribution, that roughly 60 per cent of shot will be in the central third of the pattern no matter what choke or load is used, square or other. Tighter chokes give tighter overall patterns but the distribution is constant.

The bottom line is if you want to hit, better put the center of the pattern on target and practicing hitting is more important than load dimensions.

Dr. Jones also theorizes that there must be a lot of single pellet breaks when shooters go 100 straight at skeet. Which has always led me to believe that he's spent more time by far on a computer than he has walking around a skeet field and picking up unbroken targets that have at least one hole.

Stan;
Your reply re-enforces the point I was making. As a conscientious shooter you do not take those shots at doves over 40 yds, exceeding 40 mph @ 90� to your shot line with your .410. You instead work at picking shots within its capabilities. I applaud you for this.

OLd Colonel;
Note I did not write the definition of a square load, merely stated what it is. The definition "IS" that the length of the shot column is equal to the diameter of the bore. neither 7/8oz in the 20 or 1 oz in the 16 meets this criteria. Both are in my opinion better loads for the gauge than the actual square load, but They Ain't Square.
In a bore of nominal size & no shot collar 7/8oz in a 20 stacks up to about .84", 1oz in the 16 about .85" & 1�oz in the 12 about .86" All of these you will not have very similar column lengths, all are efficient loads for the gauge & all were able to be balanced with the early smokeless propellants. All have been loaded with great success for well over a century but none of them are square.

Shooting at skeet targets with a 4.5mm (0.177 inch) air rifle soon shows if targets can be broken, or be left whole, by a single hit from a small pellet. Having done it a few hundred times I know that both events are possible.

Dr Jones developed software that allows objective analysis of patterns, thus escaping the drudgery of shot counting and the risk of subjective miscounts. He put 2500 patterns through the system. Arguably 2500 more than most shooters will ever test.

I understand now why you defined as you did and that I misunderstood what was meant by "square load" in its purely correct state and that I have always misunderstood it. I guess you learn something new every day.

Regardless at least we agree the idea of a "square load" is not any advantage and the 96/1 rule is a good measure

I've not read Jones.

Did Jones discuss 3 dimensional considerations in target hit probability?

Even at skeet, the effect of the length of the shot swarm is not negligible.

Given a 3 foot length of string, and a 58 fps target, the target would appear to move 2 inches during shot cloud passage. Low 3 and high 5 are both 90 degree deflection shots.

It ain't much, but it's half a target diameter.

If the shot does not all get there at the same time, 2D patterns would seem to have little correlation to target hit probability.

We need statistical modeling in 3 dimensions. Did Jones do that?

That's where he loses credibility with me. I'm sure we all get a single pellet break occasionally. I'm also sure we have birds scored lost that have multiple pellet holes through them. I've walked the course and picked up too many with three holes through them, and not a single chip gone. They are really easy to find, it doesn't take much looking to find them. I hate to lose a bird like that, which is one reason I favor tight chokes. When no chips come off a bird because the whole thing floats away in a cloud of dust ............ that's the kind of "break" I like. There are random pellets on the fringe even with tight chokes, too, but the density is greater and the possibility of a bird escaping with a single hole or two is reduced, IMO. Opponents to tight chokes will argue that by doing so the overall chances of hitting the bird are reduced. To that I say ......... not for me, or many others who are much better than me.

SRH

All targets are not created equal either.

The worst ones are those that are left over from the last target load a couple years ago, stored in an open shed for a couple winters, then baked in the sun before they go in the machine.

Good luck.

I'll take fresh White Flyers. Poof.

Because we find unbroken targets with one or more holes the general inference is that no targets can be broken by one pellet. Shoot a few targets with a pellet gun and see what happens, especially if they are hit on the rim. The majority do break when hit by a pellet travelling at 500 fps.

The core of the Jones finding, that most pellets are in the central third of the pattern is the valuable point. If the dense central part is put on the target there will be a hit.

In other words technique trumps ballistic microanalysis. Most of us avoid the words "I missed" and we lay the blame on other factors.

Notice I did not say that no targets are broken by one pellet. I said I was certain that we all get one pellet breaks occasionally. Shooting a target with a pellet gun proves nothing, however. Targets in the air are more likely to break, due to centrifugal force helping the targets come apart when cracked. If you could hit a flying target with an air rifle shooting a single #8 lead pellet it might prove something.

And, not having read Jones' work completely I am only commenting on what those here who have done so have said ........ but, if finding that the majority of the load is in the central core is the most important thing to come from his work, I'd have to offer that he did an awful lot of work for a little benefit. Anybody who has ever looked at a shotgun pattern on paper or a grease plate can plainly see that.

SRH

I have read most of the great shotgun ballistic authors and have their books on my shelves. They include Greener, Burrard, Oberfell & Thompson, Brister, Zutz, Lowry, Jones, and many more.

I can find fault if I look hard enough with most if not all of them in some small way whether it be a conclusion, a process, or statement within the book.

A.C. Jones writes well and more importantly supports what he writes with understandable experimentation. He probably has made more than one statement that is imperfect. That said, his method of experimentation to include sampling size as well as use of valid software computations lend me to think he is more right than wrong. Simply put as educated an amatuer I maybe, he knows more than me and I hazard to guest in this narrow field more than most of us on this board.

He does address Brister's method of shot string analysis briefly in his book. Not to attack Brister but to note that method of sampling (pulling a trailer behind speeding truck) did not account for the effects air movement and draft(my words not his as I don't have the book in my hands at the moment) caused by the truck itself.

Stan, his book dealt with more than just shot string analysis.

I believe it is a work of some benefit, in particular in debunking some commonly held myths and assumptions.

His experiments showed many things assumed or populaized as issues or solutions yielded negligible differences (effects of overbore, no one gauge is inherently superior to another, negligible difference in performance between fiber and plastic wads, and much more) He also confirms much of what Burrard and others have already written. He is dry and his book is chart heavy, but it is well worth slugging through.

I don't believe his purpose was to stir controversy, but to answer basic questions. My only regret in reading his book is that his bibliography included a book I could not find in English and my French is not up to the task of understanding technical literature in detail. Menus and tourist guides no problem, even gun catalogs, but not technical works.

As others in this thread have noted, at the end of the day and the end of the science it comes back to simply putting the pattern on the bird.

That was kind of my take also, Stan.

I may have my local library find Jones for me, and make use of the $60/yr I'm now paying in library tax which mostly goes to fund the two dozen or so computer stations.

I'm not buying another book about 2D shotgun patterns. It's been done. O&T, Zutz, Brister etc.

Zutz was a fan of the Berlin-Wansee method which purported to measure 'central thickening', but that thing has the center divided into quadrants which would seem to return truly useless information even if the results were repeatable.

Don Amos has read Jones and comments that the major finding is that patterns follow Rayleigh distribution, and small samples are pointless.

I still think 2D pattern analysis of a 3D system is useless.

The usefulness of 2D patterning, for me, comes down to shooting a grease plate for POI. I am much more concerned with where each barrel puts that pattern than I am about the minutia of that individual pattern. Are the barrels regulated, and are they shooting where I'm looking is the main use of patterning for me.

That is how we get to the point to where we can put that hot core on the bird. It has to be shooting where we're looking, or all else is for naught.

Good discussion, SRH

The simple, unadorned truth

My inference, resulting from picking up targets with one hole (or more), is that we have proof in our hands that at least some targets will not be broken by a single pellet. Which means that we don't know, out of say 100 single pellet hits, how many will break and how many won't. I think Stan and I are on the same sheet of music here.

I have not read Mr Jones' work on this. However from what I am reading here I do not really see a discrepancy. I have not gathered he said "All" targets hit by a single pellet would be broken. Obviously as targets are found unbroken with one or more holes all are not broken. Also obviously a perfect score was not registered on that round.
As I understand he stated that having looked at a large number of patterns & considering the number of perfect scores posted some number of targets "Must" have been broken by a single pellet. Some targets remaining unbroken by a single pellet "Does Not" prove that none were. As yet I have seen no evidence that his synopsis is in fact in error.

"As I understand he stated that having looked at a large number of patterns & considering the number of perfect scores posted some number of targets "Must" have been broken by a single pellet."

Which only seems to indicate he's fulla crap.

My target guns for either trap or skeet print 70% or better at the appropriate distance, either 40 yards or 21 yards as the case may be.

I've shot 100's at both games.

I can assure you, without a doubt, that during those events I got no 'one pellet breaks' with a correctly pointed target.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You don't chip and chunk your way to a 100. You center targets on the way to 100. If you are hitting your stride and you miss or chip, you know why.

I'm confident in stating that with modern loads and guns a 100% score is a statistical certainty. The 'chance' element was eliminated by the plastic shot wrapper and hard shot.

I'm not saying there are no one pellets breaks. We've all had more than we admit. It's just that a prefect score is not dependent on it. If it were, the 'random distribution' would be found at the top of the leader board. Shockingly, it isn't.

Miller, as I recall his quote, it's more than just "some number". He indicated that single pellet breaks have to be quite frequent. And since we know that single pellet non-breaks are quite frequent, to me that seems to toss his theory into a cocked hat.

And, as pointed out above, it's not necessarily true--especially in gauges larger than the .410--that there will be ANY single pellet breaks involved in a 100 straight, with a good shot who's really on his game. I got the idea that Dr. Jones wasn't fully aware of how many unbroken targets result from single pellet strikes. And I'm not sure computer analysis will get you there. Picking up holed but unbroken targets on a range will.

Computers can't analyze anything.

They are only a tool for the scientist, and all they do is run whatever program the investigator has written containing his assumptions and theories.

They process the data into tables and graphs, and it's left to the experimenter to interpret the fit, if any, to reality.

A scientist named Bob in his lab:

"Here's my experimental results. It looks to me like the system under investigation obeys these laws (sound of equation entry on computer keyboard)." Enter the RUN command. Presto, a chart that displays all possible outcomes and the probability of each.

"Hum. That does not at all look like the preconceived notions I had when I started this. If I report these results, the scientific community will laugh at me, and my grant funding will dry up. I can't have that. Lets' see here... if I fiddle with the equations like so... RUN... perfect! A discovery! I'll call it 'The Bob Effect' and bask in the notoriety that is rightfully mine."

The thing about probability is that given enough trials, every 'possible' outcome must occur, eventually. Thus, 'possible' has taken on the meaning of 'will'. We are told that a living organism 'will' assemble itself from a random vat of chemicals given enough time, or that one day all the pellets from one shot charge will follow each other into the same hole.