|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,488
Posts561,964
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 156
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 156 |
Another factor that matters alot is the size of the shot - the larger the shot size, the softer it can be and be effective, in both external and terminal senses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
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 (and if you grouped the shot according to distance from the center of impact, counted the shot in each grouping, and plotted the result, you would see a basic Normal distribution). 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?
No, but it does, however, show that it is very, very difficult to eyeball pattern density. The Rayleigh/Normal distribution (your choice as they are very similar)is durable for the flight of the pattern. Both predict much higher density at the core than at the fringe. Ever see someone make a seemingly imposible long range shots with more than usual frequency? It is quite amazing how far the center, the very center, of an open choke will retain lethal density. So, what was happening? The tubes were giving less choke effect. Simple as that.
DDA
SRH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,708 Likes: 346
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,708 Likes: 346 |
Maybe not related, but I can recall a shotshell reloading article probably in Gun Digest from maybe the mid seventies. It was about spreader load experimenting, I guess before spreader type wads and inserts were available. Anyway, the author used cut square and flattened disc shaped shot. Very foggy now, but I believe he was getting usable short range patterns that quickly fell apart well out of typical distribution.
When I did a bunch of patterning, I believe my reject loads at long range probably lost pattern density due to some shot steering well out of the hoped for pattern. The steel plate was five by five feet and I'd give the whole thing a quick roller. I'd shoot at that arbitrary 30" circle and count. With decent high antimony shot, I could account for high nineties percent of the shot. Soft bargain shot, sometimes a little over 10 percent didn't even stay on the five by five, so I couldn't have even estimated if it resembled a pattern.
I believe soft and hard shot can kill exactly the same, but I believe it's easier to come up with effective patterns with hard shot, all else being equal. I played with it a little, but couldn't see a worthwhile help from buffers or plated shot. Probably because I use low pressure 7/8 or 1 oz. loads for every thing, just switching shot size. I still suspect, don't know, that distorted flyers skew way out of extrapolated patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165 |
Maybe not related, but I can recall a shotshell reloading article probably in Gun Digest from maybe the mid seventies. It was about spreader load experimenting, I guess before spreader type wads and inserts were available. Anyway, the author used cut square and flattened disc shaped shot. Very foggy now, but I believe he was getting usable short range patterns that quickly fell apart well out of typical distribution.
Cube shot and disc shot both used to be available. I got some disc shot from, I believe, Orvis and shot some patterns. Did what it was supposed to: really opened the pattern. But beyond about 20 yards, as noted above, there wasn't much of a pattern left. And even if there had been, I might have been skeptical of the remaining energy in flattened shot at longer ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 871 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 871 Likes: 3 |
Deformed hard pellets are not necessarily equivalent to soft pellets in flight characteristics. A good example is the 3" RP .410. Shot hardness (#7.5) is really excellent, but shot scrubbing causes early attrition of at least 25% of the payload. I suspect an 11/16 oz soft shot 12 ga load would throw a very different pattern.
Again, I would bet on pattern density insofar as lethality is concerned.
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,074 Likes: 377
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,074 Likes: 377 |
First, I would say the type of shot is just one component in the overall scheme of things and that the takeaway from this thread is that an astute shooter will pattern his firestick with the cartridges he intends to use in the pursuit of game. The theory on the Gaussian distribution of shot(I prefer Gauss over Lord Rayleigh) is a good start or rule of thumb, but empirical data is the best bet. Hunting trips to Kansas chasing the ever elusive ditch parrot was what began my quest on cartridge selection. We've tried most and went to a 3" Fiocchi on one trip but settled back on Kent. So it was an effort for more than 1 gun and different types of scatterguns. And it was the "in the field" performance that was reviewed. Much of the performance is dependent on where the tube(s) is aimed and the spread is measured from the center of the density; hence, the Gaussian distribution. Typical situation is that you are in a duck blind, make-shift or not, you are trying to get down a kashi bar to fend away the hunger pangs in what you think to be a down time. Ducks are coming in and in an effort to keep concealment you are watching your dogs eyes as they go round & round as birds circle. When you pull up and shoot, is your mount the best it can be and are you pointing at the duck or where the duck will be? Just some rough numbers off the top of my head say at 30 yards(don't know if the numbers will stand up to pure mathematics or not but it gives the point) you have 170 pellets & an 80% density on a diameter of 24". Say you are off 1 foot in relation to the center of the bird. The best overlap of the Gaussian distribution(2D) and the bird will be say 3 pellets. These patterns are at a time of plus infinity, so all pellets have passed. And the big ole white elephant in the room is that there is a shot string and of the 3 pellets, will they all arrive on the target at the same instance? In most conversations it appears that it is assumed that the distribution is in the same plane when in fact it is not.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
