doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Hard or soft shot kill the best??

Brister established that buffering tightens patterns. The best loads he tested were the old Winchester XX Mags, buffered and plated, carrying the "Luballoy" name.

I don't know if hard shot kills better other than it maintains shape and therefore patterns better. But shot size increase within reason, kills more efficiently, assuming adequate pattern density.

I doubt any of us alive and posting on this forum ever had a "soft" shot shell. Going through my old ammo catalogues I find both Western and Remington offering a few "soft" shot loadings up to 1942, but by 1949-50 they are gone. Chilled shot was the first upgrade from original soft shot. They are not the same thing. Loads with "chilled" shot were about $2.50 more per thousand than "soft" shot --

1915-16

Likely true. However, so does increasing choke constriction up to the fullest possible. I'd expect buffering to add a tad bit more choke effect to "fullest possible. If a buffered load was shot in a modified choke, a unbuffered load would shoot a matching pattern with about IM to full.

People keep saying "--- hard shot improves the pattern ---." It improves the pattern ONLY if you want a tighter choke effect pattern. It does not change the pattern distribution from a Rayleigh!!

DDA

You are correct, Dave, and I was unclear. My apology. I knew that chilled is harder than dead soft, but was referring to the softest commonly available in the '80s. Thanks for pointing that out so well.

SRH

Don, there's something I'm not getting out of your last sentence. Do you mean the load without buffering would shoot the same pattern if you shot it through an IM or F choke, versus buffered through a modified? If so, I agree you could make up for the more expensive buffered load in a more open choke by shooting a less expensive unbuffered load in a tighter choke. The one place where you could no longer make up the difference, of course, would be a buffered load in a full choke, which will pattern extra full.

So, is the soft shot staying true and just flowing different through a given barrel. I'd wonder if softer shot got deformed by some manner or another, it may hold a certain distribution at shorter ranges, but that may not translate to the same distribution only larger pattern at long distance. Maybe time in flight would allow air resistance to act differently on spheres and randomly distorted spheres.

I recall an article written several yeas back written by Wallace Labinsky (not sure of the spelling) in which he tested a variety of different (Lead) shot all from the same gun & in identical loads. For some shot which was not available to reloaders he opened factory shells & used the shot only. His highest percentages were obtained using unplated premium hardened shot, Diamond as I recall. This shot produced higher percentages than any of the plated shot, either Nickel or Copper.

I don't completely understand the Rayleigh distribution thing. I understand the concept, I think. But consider that, years ago, I took a Remington barrel, with fixed choke, and shot numerous patterns with it using several different loads. All exhibited the same type pattern that we are used to seeing-- a hot, dense core with decreasing density as the you approached the edge of the pattern. Then, I had the barrel threaded for screw-ins and tested a particular maker's choke tubes in it. The distribution changed markedly, with all constrictions I tried of that brand's tubes, .005", .010" and .015", as I recall. The patterns were all significantly less dense at the core, with those pellets being distributed more toward the edge, i.e., while the fringe of the patterns were still less dense than the core, the difference was not nearly so marked as with the fixed choke, previously. The overall pattern size was consistent with the fixed choke pattern, choke for choke, just different distribution.

Does this contradict the Rayleigh distribution, or no?

SRH

"So, is the soft shot staying true and just flowing different through a given barrel."

I think the difference is, more likely, in flight characteristics.

"I'd wonder if softer shot got deformed by some manner or another,---"

The most likely time/place for shot deformation is at peak pressure/maximum acceleration. Soft-er shot would be expected to suffer more deformation than hard-er shot.

"---it may hold a certain distribution at shorter ranges, but that may not translate to the same distribution only larger pattern at long distance."

I don't think so. An accurate rifle and a much less accurate rifle will each make groups that conform to the Rayleig distribution. Obviously, the inaccurate rifle will make larger groups than will the accurate rifle. So it is with a shotgun; more choke effect makes smaller patterns than less choke effect. Wider or narrower spread does not change the distribution --- I suspect that some are confusing the size of the pattern with the distribution. It is not so. If you compare a cyl pattern at about 15 yards to a full at about 30 yards, you will find the same pattern. The 15 yard full would not look like the 15 yd cyl nor would the 30 yd cyl look like the 30 yd full. Yet, all will have a Rayleigh distribution if the individual shot pieces are grouped according to radius from the center of impact. Please, post back if anyone doesn't see this yet.

Maybe time in flight would allow air resistance to act differently on spheres and randomly distorted spheres."

Very likely. Good thinking. Do you see that the distribution remains constant as the pattern blooms?

DDA