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

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.