doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Tom Roster SSM article re low vs high pressure

I was surprised after reading this article that Tom believes low pressure shells are no safer in older guns than high pressure shells as long as the shells are within the pressure designation for which the particular firearm was proved. I also think he said higher pressure loads render less perceived recoil based on slower burning powders. Did I read that right? Does that make sense?

I read the article and I could not believe it was printed. I didn't see the article address older proofs. Nothing in the article addresses vintage gun proofs and how it relates to today's shells for use in older guns.

Ken

The article surprised me too. I don't have the technical expertise to second guess it, but maybe one of the experts here will chime in.

re: quantifying "felt recoil". It's impossible, too many variables, but here's a scholarly attempt by Dr. Matt Hall
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223811001_Measuring_felt_recoil_of_sporting_arms

The issue is debated on Trapshooters.com regularly, and Neil Winston would strongly argue perceived recoil has nothing to do with fast vs. slow powder
https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/recoil-test-of-powders-part-2-winston.79801/

Here's one of the latest; Tim is an engineer
https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/recoil-aaaah-our-favorite-subject.834949/
and
https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/powder-burn-rate-vs-recoil.651777/
https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/perceived-recoil.493105/

Blame it on Wallace Coxe - from "Smokeless Shotgun Powders: Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics", 1931
There is another factor which makes the recoil of a gun feel different with different powders, even when they are loaded to the same velocity and that is the rate of application of the recoil. It will be remembered that this was pointed out under the discussion on Characteristic Pressure Curves where it was shown that some powders burn up very rapidly and reach their point of maximum pressure in an extremely short time interval. This affects the rate of recoil, for the gun will begin to recoil at a higher rate of speed when the powder burns at a higher rate of speed.
The time required between the ignition of the powder and the time it reaches its maximum pressure is much shorter than the barrel time. Any phenomena that occur during this initial short time interval is only reported to the brain as a stimulus and does not leave any time for reaction to the stimulus. The mind can therefore only retain a subconscious reaction to impressions received during this short time interval.
It would be very difficult for any shooter to fire one shot of one type of powder and compare it with one shot of another type of powder and definitely say which powder gave him the feeling of greatest recoil unless of course they were loaded under entirely different circumstances.
During the course of a day's trapshooting, however, the shooter may be called upon to fire 50 to 200 shots. During this period the effect of acceleration of recoil is accumulating and by the time he has finished all the events there is hardly any doubt that the experienced shooter can readily identify peculiarities of differences of recoil that his subconscious mind had received from the accumulated impulses of each individual shot.

It should be noted that this was written in promotion of DuPont MX Smokeless, a Dense Multi Base Powder introduced about 1930. 25.5 grains was a 3 Dram Eq. and it was promoted as a 1 1/4 oz. Trap load. It was replaced in the 1954 with IMR PB.

Sporting Guns and Gunpowders: Comprising a Selection from Reports of Experiments, and Other Articles Published in the �Field� Newspaper, Relative to Firearms and Explosives, 1897
https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA197
�Some Notes on Recoil�

https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA254
It has been asserted that this or that powder gives �absolutely no recoil.� If one were to believe all that has been written on that point, there are various powders that possess this inestimable quality; but unfortunately�these statements are absolutely untrue.

It is a fundamental principle that action and re-action are equal and opposite; therefore, at the moment when the shot leaves the muzzle of the gun, the momentum (or weight x velocity) of the shot will be equal to the momentum of the gun. This is strictly true from the tune the shot first commences to move until it finally leaves the muzzle, but only up to that instant.
On no subject in connection with gunnery are there more erroneous ideas�superstitions one might almost call them�than on recoil. Many men will tell you that certain guns, with precisely the same ammunition, will give much more recoil than other guns of exactly the same weight. It will generally be found that these men are either novices in the art of shooting, or else they do not hold their guns properly up to the shoulder. Once and for all, it may be laid down that the recoil of guns, rifles, and arms of every description, from the smallest pistol to the heaviest piece of ordnance, proceeds from the same causes and depends upon the same elements.

https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA266
�judging of the weight and nature of recoil by the feeling alone one is apt to be misled; for according to the state of bodily health at the time, so will be the sensation produced by a normal recoil��

I am not one bit surprised at his first observation, in fact, have "preached" it for some time. Essentially if you push the same amount of shot to the same velocity you have done the same work or approximately the same "Average Pressure" over the length of the barrel.
The So-Called Low-Pressure loads have not truly lowered the total pressure, just redistributed it to give a lower peak with a "Slightly" higher pressure spread out over the rest of the barrel. When smokeless powders became common the Gunmakers knew what they were doing, they Beefed up the chamber area of their barrels to contain these higher pressures.

I think you may have misread the part about the recoil. Higher pressures are the result of faster powders, not slower ones. assuming the same ballistics. I have never been much impressed by many of the so-called Felt Recoil statements. Most, in fact virtually all, simply do not have enough certified data to defend the statement. Data for the loading manuals are generally taken from new hulls & fired through a test barrel having minimum dimensions to ensure a reloader if he follows the "Recipe" will have no higher pressure than what is listed. He may well have lower, which also may result in a slightly lower velocity than listed in the manual. A load using a slow burning powder, taken out of the shot weight class for which it was truly developed, is MUCH MORE apt to be adversely affected.

For most of my older guns, I generally try to stick to loads of around 8K, unless they are true Light Breeched guns made in the strictly Black Powder era. In that case, I stick with Black or at least very light loads with which I can bring the pressure down to around 6K while still using a fast powder.

My personal opinion is that the slow powders were optimized for either heavier shot loads, higher velocities or Both & should not be used at pressures lower than around 8K. The slow burn characteristics are achieved either by a varied shape which deters burning, a heavier deterrent coating, or both. Neither of these conditions is an asset to efficient burn at low pressures.

Recoil has nothing to do with pressure. It the reaction, to the shot payload being pushed down the barrel. The faster it moves down the barrel the greater the recoil. One vector is equal the other. It�s velocity and payload not low enough r high pressures.

We use low pressure and lower velocity loads to reduce forces likely to cause stock failure as well as barrel failures. Modern factory loads are 10-11K psi , pushing 1 1/8 ounce at 1200-1275 FPS or 1 ounce loads being pushed at 1300 FPS. Most British doubles were made for loads more like 1 ounce 1100-1150 FPS in British proofed guns. American doubles would have seen 8-9K at 110-1200 FPS with 1 1/8 ounce shot. Our doubles are often a bit heavier made. Modern ammo has higher pressure to work semi automatic guns reliable. But that 2-3K psi is not needed in a double. And doubles work perfectly with 1100 FPS loads. Few semi automatics will.

I�ve read others who claim my low pressure loads actually increase pressures near the muzzle because they peak much later. But I wonder if that�s as true as much as they claim. High pressure loads generate peak pressures within the first inch and drop off from there. Can low pressure not peak within the first few inches? And would they also not drop off a rapidly as well? And from a lower peak. So I take all these pressure articles with a big grain of salt.

I'm guessing RST and Polywad just refused to pay the "protection" to Roster...Geo

Jon;
Pressure curves have been posted here from time to time showing loads of the same ballistics, IE shot weight & velocity with various burn rate powders including Black. Peak pressures for all of them occur within the first inch of travel. The faster powders have a higher peak. The curves cross between from around 2 3/4" to 4" & the faster then have a "SLIGHTLY" lower pressure from there forward.

Note that total barrel time from ignition to exit will be on the order of 0.003 of a second. An acceleration curve begins with a steep climb upon ignition & gradually lessens as it goes down the barrel. All this would tend to lead to the conclusion that the total time the peak pressure could be higher with the fast powder at the Utmost would be on the order of 0.0001 of a second & for a total travel distance of no more than about a � inch. It doesn't take a big difference in the pressure level for the rest of the barrel to offset this difference in peak pressure. Not enough to be concerned about.

Bottom line is that pressure is really only of concern in the chamber itself. Reaction, IE shot weight & velocity is what affects the stock & primarily frame stress. It was not the increased pressures that cracked lightweight Flues frames it was the increased back thrust from the higher velocity loads with heavier shot loads.

Using the "Super-Low" pressure loads will of course not harm the gun as long as it goes off adequately & clears the bore of all components, but also is not doing it a great favor. The risk of inadequate ignition does become greater though.

Using a sensible load of shot at a reasonable velocity level with a proper load of the powder which was "Designed & Developed" for this type of load is the best way to go, in my opinion. If the chamber area itself is not constructed adequate enough for an 8K load, shoot Black or Hang it on the wall or sell it to Cracker Barrel. I have followed this rule for some 40+ years now & have never encountered a problem thereby.

I pay little to no attention to Tom Roster�s drivel. I�m still mad at him for foisting still shot on us.
JR

"Still shot"John? Let me guess: (1) using a shotgun to shoot a stationary target (rules out the clays games, but not turkey hunting. (2) Busting the "white lightin' boys at work by using a shotgun (buckshot?) to smash up their product in the great glass Mason jars that are a legend down in Deep Dixie..

Foisting- wow, don't see that word used often in today's parlance, now do we. I read Bruce Batha first, then Tom Roster next in every issue of SSM-- I find it hard to believe that anyone who writes a steady column for the most expensive bi-monthly shotgunning publication extant could be anything less that qualified in his field of expertise- Note- I left out DGJ as it is a quarterly publication- equally prestigious in the mileu of top shelf shotguns and gunning, IMO.

We are saddled with steel shot for migratory fowl, mainly due to some numbnutted idiots in CA-- the most anti-gun and anti-hunting State in the entire 50-- RWTF

Steel. Steel shot.

He was by far not the only useful idiot in that endeavor.

The MN DNR sought public comment when they decided that steel and/or non toxic shot was �inevitable� , their term, and crapped their collective pants when the public and a few elected officials who made the meeting on a Thursday evening, at 5:00PM, in St. Paul, a huge pain in the ass for working folks to make it to, showed up and reminded them the legislature makes decisions like that, NOT them.

It has been quiet since, but, I am positive it is never far from their minds.

Best,
Ted

First faux pas I�ve done in awhile, but still, there it is...
JR

No big deal John. To err is human.

Not nearly as bad as several guys we have right here who carry and support the anti-lead ammunition message and movement. An even larger number here openly or secretly support the anti-gun and anti-hunting politicians who push for lead ammunition bans.

Sometimes, the most dangerous threat is the guy who pretends to be on your side as he stabs you in the back. Often, they are the ones who cry loudest about any attempt to expose them or segregate them.

I know the fox trot dance moves, but the Faux Pas- like a Pas De Deux , not so much. I knew you meant steel shot, JR- I was just pulling your chain--RWT

'Round here a "still shot" used to be a sample tastin' of freshly run, and cooled, white likker, 'shine ........... to test the run. Also can reference a faux pas on the dove field when somebody gets too excited, shoots at a low bird, and peppers another gun. Shooter cries, "I'm sorry, I didn't see you!", to which the shot man replies "Yeah, but I'm "still shot"!.

Different from a "shot still", which is what you found when you went back to your still and found it shot full of holes by the sheriff's department.

SRH

faux pas noun
\ ˈfō-ˌp� , fō-ˈp�\
plural faux pas\ ˈfō-​ˌp�(z) , fō-​ˈp�(z) \
Definition of faux pas
: a significant or embarrassing error or mistake : BLUNDER
Long, hot soaks in winter are a classic faux pas, since exposure to extreme heat after having been in the cold can cause small visible blood vessels to appear at the skin's surface.
� Elle
especially : a socially awkward or improper act or remark
Audiences must be supportive and enthusiastic�lots of clapping, no heckling. (And talking on cellphones during the performance is a huge faux pas).
� Claudine Ise
� when I sauntered into the main dining room for my first breakfast, I realized I was the only person showing his legs. Careless faux pas, or was I being overly sensitive to the local culture?
� David Swanson
Campaigning last year seemed to convince her that she can venture out alone without making costly faux pas.
� Time Magazine
It was not until I'd covered about fifty kilometers that I committed my most terrible social faux pas yet: I overtook another cyclist.
� Polly Evans

Buzz,
could you post a link to the Tom Roster article in SSM please.
Thank you.

I wish I could, but I read that in the most recent printed magazine version. I have no idea how to do that (post a link) and I don�t have a subscription to the computerized format of SSM anyway. I�m 60 years old and not very literate with a computer, and I really don�t want to learn how to become more computer literate either. Sorry, but maybe someone here will post the thing.

I'd like to read it, too, but having dropped my subscription last year I doubt that opportunity will become available. The magazine became so embued with preppie advertisements I finally said "Enough". It had gotten to the point that Roster's articles were about the only thing in there I read, and didn't agree with much of that.

SRH

Sounds like a "Dick Cheney" Texas quail shoot number, Stan. I've never been on a Dixie dove shoot- but on our "Tower Shoot" for released and airborne pheasants- only head high and upwards of that range are allowed- if a rooster decides to go "low and slow", he's saved for the "pick up" hunt later-- Only Southern Whiskey I have tasted were: Virginia Gentleman, and Rebel Yell. Smooth--- RWTF

I concur, Stan- too many preppie ads for over-priced clothing, who wants to spend big bucks for a pair of Limey pants- breeks??I have benefited in great measure from Bruce Batha's column, just as I did years ago when the late, great Michael McIntosh was the shotgunning editor-'

Also, my 3 grown gals all "chip in" and give me a subscription "re-up" every year for my birthday-- so that is also a factor, plus my friendship with Silvio Calabi- on the masthead, and one of the best straight up writers in the business. RWTF

I agree with buzz on the computer thing! Jim

The article is absolute rubbish. Don�t bother reading it as it is reminiscent of his laudatory pining for a non-toxic shot nirvana. I�m looking forward to my next issue of the Modern Huntsman due in a few days.

A couple of years back I emailed him about one of his columns that stated Damascus barrel guns were unsafe. His reason - because it said on the side of a box of shells they shouldn't be shot in Damascus barrel guns. I finally told him thanks for helping to keep the cost of Damascus barrel guns down. The mans a idiot.

He's part of the reason I let my subscription lapse. Too many pages every issue given to a guy who writes absolutely useless articles.

Tom has done some good research. I disagree that he is an idiot. He has written a lot of stuff that I disagree with, but he has done some good research, too. He is the one who took a load of shot from a shotshell, painted three layers different colors, loaded it back in the shell and fired it into a tank of water. The shot was recovered from the bottom of the tank and segregated by colors. The bottommost layer was much more misshapen than the two layers above it, proving undoubtedly the results of setback on ignition. Many people have argued that phenomenon, and claim that all the shot in the load are misshapen equally. Not so. Tom proved it. I called and talked with him about that research some years ago.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

SRH

I truly cannot understand why anyone would even think the bottom layer of the shot would not be the most deformed. That's the end the pressure hits it from. While he was doing that did he by any chance test for the difference in deformation of an equal shot load from various gauges. That I believe would be quite informative.

Also, I still agree with his statement which brought this on that as long as the pressure does not exceed what the gun was designed for one is not doing it any great favor by going to Extreme Low-Pressure loads.

I have been loading both Twist & Damascus to around 8K for 40 years or so now & have experienced no problems. Most of my guns had undoubtedly fired many "Proof" loads of off the shelf SAAMI spec loads & are all still going strong.

Look back at this excerpt from a 2016 thread, Miller. Some people still think it's a theory, even tho' Roster has demonstrated, and proven, it beyond any doubt.

Originally Posted By: 2-piper
Well all I was really saying was that for a given amount of shot the shorter & fatter the column the shot will be much more prone to exit the barrel "ROUND" rather than "Squashed". Still don't see what's so hard to understand abut that.
Best Shotgun advice I ever read was to decide how much shot you wanted to throw, how heavy a gun you were willing to carry & how much recoil you could tolerate.
Once you reached a reasonable compromise on those three point, select a gun with the biggest hole down the barrel which met those criteria.

Reply by cpa .......

What squashes it and where is it squashed? On the top of the shot, on the bottom or both? It seems to me that, if this is the case, the top layer of shot would be squashed on the bottom, the bottom layer would be squashed on the top and the intermediate layers would be squashed on both top and bottom. Yet, I have seen perfectly round unsquashed shot in birds. I really don't understand your theory and question its validity, but I could be wrong. I can see that the shot in contact with the bore could be misshapen altho shot cups should limit that. Anyone else have any thoughts on the squash theory?


Edited by cpa (04/06/16 09:41 PM)

I think he only did that demonstration with 12 ga. loads, Miller.

SRH

Stan;
Tell me in Layman's terms why, IF, a lead crusher is calibrated to give a certain reduction in length at say 8K psi & it is then fired in a test barrel fitted with both crusher & Piezzo Electric readings at the same distance from the breech the crusher gage will not be reduced to that same extent & thus read a lower pressure.

Think this over carefully & take your time. After your answer, we will go from there. I am not trying to introduce any "Flat Earth" HooDoo but sound mathematical principles.

You totally misunderstood my post, Miller. I'm in 100% agreement with you about this, and have been for as long as I can remember. I copied and pasted an old post of yours from '16, concerning setback damage to shot, and the reply from a poster that goes by "cpa", who didn't believe the bottom shot in the payload are "squashed" more than those further towards the front.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. We're on the same page. He isn't.

SRH

Since you brought up the old post, just to make things clear I didn't say the bottom shot were more, or less, squashed. The discussion began, I believe, with the assertion that a 1 oz load in a 28 gauge required more force to achieve a certain velocity than a 1 oz load in a 12 gauge. That is simply not the case although force per square inch would be greater in the 28 gauge. Then it was asserted that the shape of the mass (long column of lesser diameter in the 28 ga.) would determine the inertia of the shot charge - again, don't think that is correct.
I questioned the acceptance of common knowledge, beliefs and anecdotal evidence as "proof" of the statements about deformation. Wonko the Sane also questioned that, but more forcefully than did I.
If you read my final comment, it should be clear that I stated that there was a lot going on as the shot charge moved down the barrel, that it was complex and that probably much was not known.
For example, have you thought about the relative impact on the lower level of shot as the upper level is slowed going through the forcing cone and the choke and how any resulting deformation might compare to the initial explosion deformation? It would be interesting to make a barrel without a forcing cone and choke so that the shell case would fit the chamber more like a rifle and the shot charge could enter the barrel unimpeded. Or make a shell case with the shot charge in an enclosed plastic container that actually fit the barrel similar to the Speer handgun shot containers.

They did that, called it a Chamberless gun, they did though normally have a choke.
M/Lers had no forcing cone & most were cylinder bore. They, of course, did not use a case. They both shot extremely well.

Bore area is proportional to the Square of their diameters, therefore the 12 ga bore has about 40% more area than the 20 & about 75% more than a 28. If you fire for instance an ounce of shot out of each @ 1200 fps, you have indeed applied the same amount of Work. The Pressure to move the load to that level will though be 75% more for the 28 & 40% more for the 20 than for the 12, all figures in PSI or pounds per square inch. PSI is what deforms the shot, NOT total work.

Note also this pressure is NOT meaning the peak pressure but the total pressure applied. Even if by use of a slower burn powder we bring the Peak pressure of the smaller gauge down to a similar level to the 12, that pressure will be maintained for a longer period of time.

"IF" we were talking Static pressure then the applied time would be meaningless, but for the milleseconds involved here it does in fact become meaningful.

It isn't slowed at all. The shot charge acts as a fluid in motion and is speeded up due to the venturi effect when passing through a constricting area, such as a choke. And, that is not "common knowledge, belief or anecdotal evidence", it is scientific fact. Thus, there is no further significant deformation, due to setback, after the initial ignition and movement from static.

SRH

Stan;
Can you cite the data that proves that as "Scientific Fact"? There is data extant that tends to disagree with that Fact.

You know, Miller. I think I spoke too hastily in using the term "scientific fact". I have read Rocketman relate it so many times over the last 13 years on here, that I had come to accept that it is scientific fact. I cannot prove it with data, but when he explains it, with his lifetime engineering background, it makes so much sense that I accept it, too.

My apology to cpa and to the board for calling something fact that I cannot back up with data. That data may well exist, but I cannot put my hands on it.

Just for funsies, type "venturi" into the search engine on this forum and read all the times Don (Rocketman) has explained the principle, and how it applies. BTW, thanks for holding my feet to the fire on it.

Would you, in turn, please cite the data that disagrees with my (and Don's) belief of how a shot charge acts when encountering a forcing cone or choke cone (venturi)? I would seriously like to read it. Thanks in advance.

SRH

Stan;
The data I have was cited by Burrard. unfortunately, when I was entering chemo back in Oct of '17 we had to do some re-arranging of the house. Somewhere, Somehow my copy was misplaced & has not been found yet. I Fear the Worst, that somehow it got in the trash. "The Absolute Best Book" I have ever had on shotguns.

I will do the best I can from memory. A heavy pendulum gun was made up with as I recall a 24" barrel. This barrel was fitted with a crusher pressure sensor. Barrel extensions were made up to around 32" as I recall with each one very carefully fit to within a couple of Ten Thousandths of an inch (.0002") & carefully lapped in for no step in the bore. The two of interest for this discussion though were two 30" total lengths with one Cylinder bore & one Full choked. Loads were loaded using several powders all in the nominal 2�" chambering & with the nominal British Game load & Velocities were recorded at the customarily observed vel over 20 yards & the recoil recorded. Interesting thing was that within each barrel recoil varied according to the velocity of each individual load as would be expected.

What was Not expected was that while the observed velocity was slightly higher for the Full barrel than for the Cyl barrel, the Recoil Reversed with the Cylinder barrel showing a very slight but consistent increase in recoil. So far the only explanation for this was the cylinder barrel was giving a very slightly higher velocity than the Full barrel. What could account for this other than a slight checking of the shot upon hitting the choke?

Nota Bene (Note Well) I consider Don to be one of the very most knowledgeable posters we have here & I have learned a tremendous amount from him over the years. Never-The-Less I am not thoroughly convinced that solid shot behaves identically to a liquid or gas in passing through that venturi.

Also in the early days of choke boring, many barrels had very thin muzzle walls. Problems were soon encountered with bulges at the choke or as the Brits called it Lifting the Choke. This would tend to indicate a slight checking of the charge & the creation of an obstruction shock. Most did not bulge but simply had a slight ring bulge at about the beginning of the choke.

If anyone has any data as to what is the absolute closest to the muzzle it has been possible to record velocities I would like to have this knowledge. The difference in absolute muzzle velocity & that at even 2 or 3 feet is easily accounted for by the speed at which the shot from the cylinder bore disperse & drag affects the individual pellets rather than the whole charge reacting more like a solid projectile from the choked barrel. All I've got at the present.

Sure Wish I could find that "The Modern Shotgun" book. The Most Valuable book I have ever owned in my entire life is "The Holy Bible" but this was the most valuable one I ever had relating to shotguns, & not just from a monetary sense but the value of the information therein.

Thanks, Miller. I respect your opinions and will give that information careful consideration. But, for now, I'm in the camp that small shot behaves very similar to a fluid when passing through a venturi. I cannot explain the phenomenon you described with the full choked vs the cylinder bore, in the pendulum gun, but since the internal velocities cannot be measured (yet), and since the experimenters couldn't explain it either (so far the only explanation for this was ..........) I'm thinking that there could be another explanation as of yet not put forth.

Since there seems to be no absolute proof of either theory, yet ............. it's only our opinions, I guess. I will be pondering the recoil phenom for some time. It's fun to think about. If I can find any supporting work for my statement in the above post, I will surely post it.

The bulges in the thin barrels could be attributed to large size shot, in the absence of the shot sizes being contained in the data, which certainly might not pass through the constriction as freely as smaller shot. This has been noted for many years.

SRH

Stan now you know how Hillary Clinton felt when she got cornered in the Bengasi cover up and with eYes crossed made the statement...

"At this point does it really matter ?"

Interesting. It's certainly true that under both SAAMI (US) and CIP (European) standards, the maximum average pressure (MAP) for 12ga is lower than the 20ga MAP. But looking at the Alliant Powder website and comparing 1 oz loads, I can find a 12ga load with a peak pressure of 10,870 psi and a 20ga load with a peak pressure of 10,300 psi. Depends on the components used in both loads.

How does one go about determining the total pressure for a given load? When comparing MAP, while the 12ga standard is lower than the 20ga, the difference--SAAMI 12ga MAP vs 20ga--is only 500 psi (11,500 vs 12,000). That's nowhere near 40%.

Miller, which of the three volumes of Sir Gerald's did you have?

King;
I had a boxed set which was published around 1960/61, don't recall exactly now. It had all three volumes. Two of the volumes were combined into one book so was actually only two books, but had all three volumes.

Larry; First & Foremost that 11,500 vs 12,000 is Max Peak Pressure "NOT" Max Average Pressure. Average pressure will be way lower than the Peak. Using my same example if one pushes an oz of shot out the end of a barrel @ 1200 fps it takes a certain amount of work to be applied regardless of the size of the bore. In a shotgun the pressure rises very rapidly to its peak while still in the chamber & then falls, also quite rapidly at first & then slower as it goes down the barrel, giving the typical pressure Curve I am certain you have seen many times. The Average pressure is the total pressure under that curve. That work which is done, or Force, is proportional to the pressure times area. Since the 12 gauge has 40% more area to push on the 20 gauge has to use 40% more pressure to accomplish the same Force.

Again. FORGET the Peak pressure here, we are talking about the entire pressure curve for the total length of the barrel. Even within the same gauge, one can push the same shot load to the same velocity with widely varying Peak pressures. Keep in mind though one has not actually Lowered the average pressure, only Re-Distributed it.

An older Hercules handbook I still have has a chart showing the length of the column for one ounce of shot in the various gauges. for a 20 gauge they show 0.968" & for the 12 0.690". Divide .968 by .690 & guess what you get, a 40% longer column. This based on an ounce of shot occupying 0.288 Cu In of space.

That same 0.288 CuIn will also, depending upon exact granulation & density, contain 2� drams of Black Powder.

I know Longshot powder kicks the snot out of me...certain other powders are much more comfortable.

Have you Chronograph tested those Longshot loads in comparison with the "Other Loads"? Unless you know with absolute certainty the velocities are equal then just saying one powder Kicks Harder than the other is not really saying much.

I tend to agree with Geo�s comments in regard to this latest article in SSM magazine from Roster.

At times I have found Roster's articles informative. That said, I have also come to the opinion that at times Roster has used his article space in SSM to promote his own agenda.

Being a long time subscriber to SSM a concern to me are the recent actions/directions/decisions that Mr. Stuart seems to be taking SSM.

I heard that Diggory Hadoke was developing a new online magazine. I am looking forward to reading/seeing the content.

Nope. I'm quoting straight off the SAAMI Voluntary Performance Standards, Miller. Max Avg Pressure for 12's is 11,500; Max Probable Lot Mean is 12,000; Max Probable Sample Mean is 12,800. For 20ga, either 2 3/4" or 3", the figures are 12,000; 12,600; and 13,500.

Larry;
First & Foremost you have to "Understand" what you read & Cite. Yes, the pressures quoted are an "Average" of Max peak pressures. I apparently wrongly;y ASS-U-MEd that everyone here understood that.
All pressures unless one is only talking of a single shot are averages.
I specifically Stated I was NOT speaking of peak pressure, BUT of the total pressure for the length of the barrel, which is also an average when a number of shots are fired. The Clue there in what you posted is the WORD MAX, which again, I Specifically stated was not what I was speaking of.

What part of that is Beyond your Comprehension, Do Tell, & I will type real Slow & try once more to explain so maybe you can read it well enough to Comprehend.

Miller, if you hadn't started by apparently being unfamiliar with SAAMI terminology--which I copied directly from their data--you wouldn't have been confused. SAAMI, being primarily concerned with maximum pressures (proof or service), starts out by listing Maximum Average Pressure. Which is, as far as I know, the number to which reloaders pay attention since they don't want to exceed the Max Avg Pressure for the gauge in question as determined by SAAMI. Reloaders have no idea of the "total pressure" and have no way of measuring it. The best they can do is look at a reloading manual or website and the pressure stipulated in that manual or website. If they're not worried about the pressure stipulated in the book, then they proceed to reload. It's not really rocket science.

Referring back to Mr. Roster's article: Many of us are aware of the fact that the CIP standard service pressure (10,730 psi) is lower than the SAAMI service pressure (11,500). So if we're dealing with CIP guns proofed to the CIP standard, we shoot for a lower number. Likewise, the SAAMI standard was lower for short chambered American shotguns than it is for modern guns, which gives us yet another reason to seek out loads that one may not necessarily define as "low pressure", but are certainly lower pressure than the 11,500 psi we might get if we were to touch off a modern American factory 12ga shell.

Larry;
I was NEVER confused at all. I stated plainly Up front what I was speaking of which was the average TOTAl pressure, over the entire length of the barrel. Totally UNRELATED to MAX Average pressure as given in the SAAMI standards you quoted.

So far as I can tell you are the only one here who Simply Does Not Have a Clue as to what you are even saying on this thread.

I even said I was speaking of the entire area under the pressure curve, which again is totally unrelated to the Max Peak pressure.

The fact that all quoted pressures of this sort are never a "ONE-SHOT" deal but the average of a number of shots is again totally unrelated.

Once more this is extremely simple, What Part are you not Capable of Understanding.

He'll reply tomorrow morning about 7 to 7:30, Miller. He ain't done yet, I'll bet'cha.

SRH

Well Stan . . . speaking of being done . . . I'm still waiting to hear about a shotgun that was sleeved using Whitworth tubes. Or maybe you're done on that one.

And then there's your contention about big shoots and how there will always be more top level shooters than average shooters. Results of this year's Wisconsin Ironman, with 290 shooters: Total of 91 in Master, AA, and A Classes combined. Outnumbered by the 96 shooters in Hunter Class.

So Miller, you haven't yet attempted to explain to the great unwashed masses here exactly how it is one goes about determining the average TOTAL pressure produced by a particular load. And why it's important for us to bother. Obviously, since we know there's only one peak pressure per load after which the pressure drops, it clearly doesn't remain the same from the breech to the muzzle. And we all know that pressure drops faster in some loads than in others. But what the heck is the whole "total pressure" thing about? I've sent quite a few reloads (and some factory loads) to Tom Armbrust to have them tested for pressure and velocity. Very valuable information. He gives me an average pressure for each load. But he doesn't tell me anything about total pressure.

What's it about? Awe c'mon Larry, why is there always discussion here about "low pressure" loads? Are you saying that if I were looking to end up at a particular velocity, all else equal, that two different "average" pressures can end up with the same velocity?

I have no idea, how many of the same load might Tom A. recommend be tested to come up with an 'average' what have you data for the particular load?

I don't know what total pressure is. Are you integrating under the pressure, time curve? If so, I'm not sure what that is, but probably not total pressure.

If I was looking for the ragged edge of an upper safe load limit, I would qarn well want to know what the variance is, in addition to the average peak (max) pressure.

Larry;
IF you could simply understand what you read then you really would not have had to ask such a question. It all started from the knowledge that, yes max pressure falls off fast. However, it still takes the same amount of total force to get that oz of shot out the end of the barrel at 1200 fps, or any other load you desire to make a comparison with.

The whole point was if you have a gun with thin barrels near the muzzle, even if you drop the peak pressure from 10K to 5K, you have not lowered the total force applied, just redistributed it. You thus have not truly done that gun with thin walls near the muzzle a favor by lowering the peak pressure, you have actually slightly increased the pressure down under the thin spot.

As Force = Pressure times Area this also explains the comparison of firing the same load to the same velocity from guns of different gauges. Area of a gun's bore is proportional to the square of their diameters, thus the pressure is also proportional to the area.

Using nominal bore diameters (.729/.615) = 1.405. For brevity, I simply called it a 40% increase in area for the 12 over the 20. Therefore if you fire the same 1oz of shot to 1200 fps from both gauges TOTAL Average Pressure for the length of the barrel will be 40% higher in the 20 gauge.

Once again this has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with Max Peak Pressure regardless of how many shells were tested to list the AVERAGE. This all based upon "Proven" Scientific Facts & actually applies to many fields other than just guns where pressure is involved, including internal combustion engines, hydraulics, etc.

Until some time as you get it through your head that there is a lot involved in shotgun ballistics than JUST the Max Peak Pressure then I suppose you will never come to an understanding of this. In the meantime, if you so desire just go on with your non-related blurbs which mostly gives the appearance you have little understanding of mathematical principles. Personally, I think, Perhaps, the appearance is not deceiving.

PM sent.

Miller: Since Force equals pressure times area and recoil is a force, then why do we hear on this forum over and over that pressure has nothing to do with recoil? I�m confused on that. Thx.

The issue here, it seems to me, is really how low one should go in terms of PEAK pressure where vintage gun X is concerned. I've never been a real low pressure Nazi. I know some guys liked their PB loads at 5,000 psi or so . . . but I was never one of them. At some point, someone here stated that if you have a gun that can't handle peak pressure somewhere around 8,000 psi (might even have been you, Miller), then it's probably not a good idea to shoot it. I'm pretty much in the same camp. Given what we've learned about vintage loads going way back, they weren't lower pressure than that. Never mind the fact that if you live where I live (serious cold country) and shoot when it's below freezing, you'll often get pretty poor performance from very low pressure loads. I've heard very weak sounding Winchester low noise/low recoil loads in cold weather (far weaker than when it's 70 or so). Reloading manuals used to give us hints along those lines. Like "not a good cold weather load".

But given the fact that pressure only goes one way (down!) after its peak, it seems to me you'd need a pretty darned thin spot down close to the muzzle if you were going to blow the barrel there. Has anyone ever heard of a gun that's blown out near the muzzle as a result of a very low pressure load? I can't recall anything here. And that's an unusual location for a catastrophic barrel failure anyhow, unless maybe there's a muzzle obstruction.

Well, I missed the time by a few minutes. But, you're predictable if nothing else.

Funny you would bring up two past discussions where you clearly lost the debate both times. One more time, that ain't a big shoot. Spread your wings Lar'. Get out a little more. It'll do your perspective good.

Larry Brown ............... not necessarily right, but never in doubt.

SRH

Stan Ol'Larry sure made you look dumb...

Just saying.

Larry;
I have made that statement in the past about hanging a gun on the wall if it was not considered safe with 8K loads, so I am likely the one you recall saying it. An exception to this would be a gun with light a breech section built prior to the introduction of smokeless. IF in a good sound condition I would consider shooting it with Black Powder Only. Also, I have stated on numerous occasions that the rise in pressure down the rest of the barrel is only a "Slight" increase. It is not normally enough to be concerned about. The fact remains though & is really beyond dispute, that using a load with a low chamber pressure when the same shot charge is given the same velocity, does Absolutely nothing to help the forward end of the barrel.

Now before someone flames me (Again) I am well aware that pressure is pressure & doesn't care if the color is Red, White & Blue or just plain Black. However, when it comes to propellants Black gunpowder is much more forgiving of any slight errors one may make in loading & it is virtually impossible to get an overload in a standard case for the gun.

Buzz;
Max Peak pressure has nothing to do with recoil. The formula for recoil is ejecta weight which is shot weight plus wad weight plus 1�-� time powder weight. That 1� to 1� will vary whether one is loading a light shot charge with a fast powder or a heavier charge with a slow powder. This is predominately an estimate & is to offset the increase in the velocity of the Gases as they exit the muzzle, which adds to the recoil. As an example, let's take a 3-1 1/8 load using a wad which weighs 35 grains & 20 grains of powder. We'll use a middle of the road for the powder multiplier & take it at 1 3/8. We now have a total ejecta weight of 555 grains which converted to pounds gives, to keep figures even, 0.080 lbs. Multiply this by 1200 fps & you get 96. Divide that by the weight of the gun. Let's use 6 lbs even & you get a recoil velocity of 16 fps for the gun. I find the recoil velocity to me much more useful than Recoil Energy personally. A recoil velocity of around 15 fps is mild, 16 is getting a bit stiff & if I'm going to shoot more than one or two shots I do not want to exceed 16 by much.

So, Yes, you are correct, both the velocity of the shot & the recoil of the gun are generated by pressure. Neither, however, are directly proportional to the Max Chamber pressure. This is what has confused many. That old Bug-a-Boo of thinking the max pressure is the end all of shotgun ballistics. The Max pressure is truly of importance only to ensure the load does not exceed the pressure the chamber was designed to handle. In reality, it plays a very minor role in other aspects, including velocity, recoil, the strain on the action & splitting of stocks. Ejecta weight & velocity are the important factors in all of those. Pressure is not in the formulas for figuring any of them.

Joe;
I realized that, but thanks for stating it.

I have read of many people commenting on Longshot powder's nasty recoil. It is a punch, not a push, and yes I was using it to duplicate other heavy loads only to see how the patterns turned out on the patterning board. Funny how a powder change can affect that. I would suspect skeet shooters have definite preferences concerning "soft" shooting powders, as well. Nothing likes hundreds of rounds to make you want to find a little more comfort.

https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/burn-rate-color.pdf

Look up where Longshot is on that list. It should be a "Push" powder, not a "Punch" one. Titewad & Clays & Etc are Punch powders.

Miller; Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain this complex concept of recoil and the relation to pressure to us/me. I appreciate it/you. So, am I correct to say, recoil has no or very little relationship to MAX pressure but is more related to total pressure which is defined by that area under the pressure curve?

I appreciate it, too, Miller.

My current bismuth load for ducks, using my HE Fox, uses Longshot powder. I haven't noticed any unusual recoil characteristics with it, compared to the IMR 7625 I was using before. In a lighter gun I might notice something different, but I doubt it. I have noticed the differences, in loads of roughly the same shot weight and velocity, as far as "pushing" and "punching". I've never heard it put exactly like that, but it's a good way to describe the sensation.

SRH

Larry will be along shortly to set you straight...

That's it Buzz. The velocity is as you said the result of the Force applied to the load & of course as you also said that Force is generated by pressure.

Also, some facts worthy of consideration is the total time from ignition to the load exiting the muzzle is around .003 of a second will vary just a wee bit according to load).

Total movement of the gun during that .003 second is proportional to the weight of the load & the weight of the gun. In the example, I cited above where the total load weight was 0.08 of a pound & fired from a 6-pound gun the gun movement at the time of exit would be about 5/16 inch. The rest of the movement is the result of the Inertia given it in that brief period.

It is also well to keep in mind that Fast vs Slow is all relative. The entire range of powders suitable for shotguns is a rather small range. They are all extremely Fast if you compare them to burning an old worn out cotton batting mattress.

They are all Extremely Slow if you compare them to the Detonation of a high explosive.

That's funny, Stan. The Ironman really exists, happens every year, draws around 300 shooters. Our whole state has fewer than 6 million people; GA isn't far from 10 million. And the Ironman takes place up north, the least populated part of the state--not down by Madison and Milwaukee. Pretty darned big deal for our state.

Meanwhile . . . not sure how I lost on a gun sleeved with Whitworth tubes. Does one of those even exist? I'll believe it when I see one. But then, you never know. One of those UFO's the military is observing might land someday and a little green guy that looks like E.T. might step out. Or maybe looking like Chewbacca. Or Princess Leia, if we're lucky. But I'm not buying that either until I see it.

Glad my memory isn't failing. Seems we agree that there just isn't a lot of point to working up loads that are much lower pressure than that as far as safety is concerned.

But I remain interested in determining just how much advantage a high pressure load offers vs low pressure in terms of retained pressure at various points further down the barrel. Thought I recalled that Sherman Bell gave some examples of that in one of his "Finding Out For Myself" articles in Double Gun Journal, and found it in my files. It's Part VI, "Smokeless vs. Black", Summer 2002. In that article, Bell's goal was to repeat what we see in the Dupont tests from the 30's, comparing smokeless to black--but using modern smokeless powders. But in running those tests, he provides some data on retained pressure down the barrel. He placed strain gauges at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 inches. Fired 10 shots with each load he tested to get an average. All of his loads were low pressure--nothing over 7,000 psi--but there's enough difference between the lowest and highest pressure loads he tested to make an interesting comparison.

He tested two comparable loads, one using 7625 at a one inch pressure of 4800 psi; the other a black powder load at 4700 psi. At 12 inches, the pressure from both was 1800 psi. He also compared a load using Universal Clays that read 6900 psi at one inch, along with a black powder load at 5900 psi. 12 inch pressure of the Clays load was 2000 psi; the black powder load, 2100 psi.

While the two higher pressure loads shed more pressure in 12" than did the two lower pressure loads, they still retained slightly higher pressure at 12". So we're not seeing any gain yet, at that point. It's too bad he didn't use any higher pressure loads. Undoubtedly a 10,000 psi load would drop in pressure even more over 12" than any of those lower pressure loads. But it also has a lot further to drop before it catches up with them.

So at what point down the barrel does the higher pressure load drop below the pressure of the lower pressure load? The graph from the Dupont test shows that the loads with the highest and the lowest peak pressures have flip-flopped at 3", with the lowest becoming the highest, and the highest dropping to the lowest. That doesn't happen in Bell's test. The two low pressure loads (black and smokeless, respectively) have dropped to 3700 and 3800 psi at 3", while the two higher pressure loads (again, black and smokeless respectively) are at 4700 and 5100. Low pressure loads are 2400 and 2300 at 9"; high pressure, 2900 and 2700. But the loads in Bell's test are not "twins" to the same degree they were in the Dupont test, where they were all 3 dram equivalent, 1 1/4 oz shot--which likely makes a difference. Likewise, Bell's use of modern smokeless powders may also be a factor.

It would be interesting to run the same test with all modern smokeless loads, same shot charge, same velocity, but with widely different peak pressures. Would the results look more like the Dupont graph, or more like Bell's results? It would certainly be a good subject for yet another "finding out for myself" series of tests.

"Smokeless Shotgun Powders: Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics" by Wallace H Coxe, 1927
"All powders loaded to develop the same energy" (ie. the area underneath each curve)



Pressure is expressed in Long Tons. sq/ inch but it seems clear that PSI X 2240 was used to calculate those values (+ 10-14% for modern transducer numbers)

Ballistite maximum pressure at 1� was 4.9 Long Tons = 10,976 psi
Schultze at 1 3/4� was 4.5 Long Tons = 10,080 psi
DuPont Bulk at 1 2/3� was 4.1 Long Tons = 9,184 psi
FFFg at 1 1/2� was 3.8 Long Tons = 8,512 psi
DuPont Oval at 2� was 3.5 Long Tons = 7,840 psi


Pressure-time curve comparing Red Dot and PB, from http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2/Study2.3.pdf




Alliant data for 1 1/8 @ 1200fps 12g
Alliant e3 - 17.2 grains = 10,950 psi
Red Dot - 18.3 gr = 10,300 psi
Green Dot - 21 gr = 8900 psi
Unique - 22 grains = 8900 psi
Green Dot and Unique pressure curves are indistinguishable.
See http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=405370



Pressure-distance curves are almost identical at about 2"

Larry;
Good questions all, you are starting to sound like you may actually be interested in learning a bit. There are in my opinion a couple of key points involved here. One you have already mentioned is that DuPont's tests were all made with loads having the same terminal ballistics, but with widely differing burn rates of powders.

Bell's tests on the other hand, as you also mentioned were made with loads of differing terminal ballistics & with a far lesser variation of burning speeds. I looked up Universal Clays on Hodgdon's burn rate chart & only found Universal without the Clays attached. I do not know if this is exactly the same powder or not.

The burn rate for Universal falls between Unique & Herco. in comparison to Alliant powders so is just a bit faster than 7625. Black powder burn rate is close to the 7625 so it was, in fact, a slow burn powder. The early smokeless powders were all faster than black so gave higher max chamber pressures than did Black, but lower barrel pressures. I believe that DuPont Oval was the first of the so-called progressive powders. When Hercules brought out Herco it was "I Think" just a tad slower than Oval.

As you can see thus Bell's test were all done with powders of very close to the same burning rates but with different terminal ballistics. so, unfortunately, do not provide much help as far as this discussion goes.

Incidentally, the Infallible powder used in the DuPont tests had the exact same chemical composition as Unique. Both were flake powders, but the Unique flakes were about 16% thicker than the Infallible flakes so just a WEE bit slower burning. In these DuPont tests, Black fell between Infallible & Oval. Ballistite & DuPont Bulk Shotgun smokeless was just a shade faster than Infallible but were used in similar loads. Oval was designed specifically for the new Higher Velocity loads with the maximum shot weight, which for 2 3/4" 12 gauge was 1� oz. The early 3" 12 gauge Magnum carried 1 3/8 oz & the so-called Super 10 (2 7/8") 1 5/8 oz. DuPont specifically stated the 3-dram equivalent load of Oval, even with the full amount of 1� oz shot was an "Underload".

My loading has always been aimed toward hunting loads so a powder which works well at any temperature encountered is desirable. With this in mind, I believe one will have far better results to stick with powders designed for the purpose. For light shot charges thus a powder in the fast range is desirable. For heavy charges at maximum velocity then a powder in the slow range is called for. Medium powders are for the intermediate ranges.

For strictly warm to hot weather conditions, a bit more leeway is available, but I still see no need what-so-ever to go to those extreme low pressures by taking a slow burn rate powder out of its design element, even though some loading manuals list such loads.

I will note that unless it has occurred in the very late years Hercules/Alliant has not listed any extreme low-pressure loads with their slow powders, For Good Reason, I believe.

Did you have access to the Sherman B. report yesterday, with different potential peak pressures and pressure cross over points as it came down?

Our discussion from 2012
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=291214&page=1

Larry: what was the load (shot and Dr.Eq. or fps) of Bell's 7625 and BP, and Universal Clays and BP please?

Drew, first 2 loads were 1 1/8 oz, 3 DE. The 2nd pair is basically the classic Super-X load: 3 3/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz.

Miller, the Universal you found is the powder Bell used. Back then, usually called Universal Clays. Thanks for your thoughts. Would be interesting to do tests with a greater pressure spread using different modern smokeless loads.

Thanks Larry.

titewad "killer bees" are the softest shooting shells I have ever found. Been very informative following your posts, though, 2 piper. I don't have an explanation for why I have experienced such wicked recoil with Longshot, and I don't mind shooting my 375 or seven mag. In fact I have never considered my 30'06 to recoil substantially even with the 220 grainers I took elk hunting once. Longshot just seems to have the right wave length to ring my bell and make me feel "head-achy." I wonder if vibration patterns work in both directions?

Is there a difference in muzzle rise between fast and slow powders? Could a slow powder actually put the comb of the stock into your cheekbone a bit more. The results I have had have been with several guns, so stock fit may not be the answer.

I haven't used Longshot since 20/28 came on the market. A lot of shooters will remark that it's loud, and that may have a connection to the felt recoil. Somewhere along the line, Bob Brister wrote that the best recoil reducer is good hearing protection. Sounds louder, you expect it to kick more.

I have heard the criticism of Longshot being a heavy kicker before. I have no doubt some who feel that kick are correct for what they experienced, however my experience is the opposite In the longshot in 1 oz 16 ga loads I use.

Michael, what 16 ga. Load do use with Longshot? I also use Longshot in a 16 ga and find it to be pleasant to shoot in a old SxS.

FWIW, I have been loading 22.5 gr of longshot for low pressure 16 gauge 2.5" shells. I would be interested to hear about the loads that others are using.

I�m not the most technical shooter, but I can prove this article is BS rather easily. Drop a modern shell into your classic double (assuming it is safe to shoot) and pull the trigger. Doesn�t feel very good, does it? Now, drop in a low pressure RST shell. Feels sweet, doesn�t it? It�s that simple. One feels like crap. The other does not. The rule I follow is this, I shoot an old gun with the closest thing to the ammo it was made to shoot. The end.

Michael, I am loading 23 gr. In a 2 3/4" 16 ga. Seems sweet to shoot.

Hi Brent, here's the 16ga load I use for Sharpies and Ringnecks. This one has worked very well for me. Patterns good (in the guns I use).

Cheddite 2 3/4" Hull

22grs Longshot

SG16 Wad

209 Cheddite Primer

1 1/8oz of shot

7000psi

1175fps

I also use an Overshot card, does give me better crimps. The SG16 is a 7/8 to 1oz wad, but I've never had any problems with flyers or "blown" patterns with the additional 1/8oz of shot.

Best,

Greg

Pressure has very little to do with recoil. The major factors are shot charge and velocity. An RST shell may very well "feel" better (lower recoil) than a "modern" shell from Win/Rem/Fed. But if it does, it's because the RST shell has a lighter shot charge and/or lower velocity than the "modern" shell.

RST makes a great 2 3/4" 12ga pheasant load: 1 1/4 oz 5 or 6 shot, 1200 fps. Modest recoil for a 1 1/4 oz load, and it will stone any rooster that's not wearing Kevlar. Somebody decides that more velocity is better and selects the "modern" 1400 fps 1 1/4 oz load. He'll know the difference right away, because that extra 200 fps velocity--which doesn't make any significant difference to the pheasant--just increased recoil energy from 26 to 38 ft-lbs. Close to 50% more recoil. I don't even want to think about the 1500 fps loads!

Greg, thanks, that is almost exactly what I load.