doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com If a 12ga,16ga, and a 20ga. all loaded with 1oz ?

There are so many variables in shooting flying birds with a shoitgun, that 1) all things are never equal; b) by highlighting some issues and disregarding others, one can prove just about anything. IMO.

Back when a common 20g load had less payload and the 7/8 oz load came around, I'm sure there were many that said it was too much to be efficient. My experience tells me a 1 oz load in a 20g is an effective killer even if it's not a technically perfect load in some people's opinion.

Some will tell you 1 oz in a 20g causes too much recoil, then, in other threads, tout how their 16g guns are built on 20g frames and just as light.

I think the problem with most 20s and, 28s, come to think of it, is they don't weigh enough. I don't know too many folk who are skillful with a sub 6 lb gun, which, is what most 20s and 28s weigh. Back when McIntosh ordered his Spanish 28 of some sort, he was very specific that it weigh 6 lbs, which was the smartest thing I had seen when the topic of smallbores came up.

A 16 that weighs 6 lbs is pretty common, a 20 or 28 is not. 1 oz loads out of my 5 3/4 lb Remington 17 start to suck after, oh, about three of them.
Best,
Ted

Ask for data, get anecdotes. Okay, My 6lb.6oz. 12ga. weighs less than many 16ga. guns. Does that mean anything? The claim that 16ga. guns weigh the same or less than 20ga. guns may be true in some cases, but on average? A 20ga. on a 20 frame will weigh less than a comparable 16 ga. on a 16 frame, or a 12ga. on a 12 frame.

If the 16er mantra, "hits like a 12, carries like a 20," were true, they'd be the most popular gun in America. They aren't. Every gauge has advantages and disadvantages - none is perfect. Shoot what works best for you.

Well, Jack, everyone considered BETA pretty much superior to VHS with the single exception of quantity of content that could be placed on the media.

Which one won? Americans can usually be counted on to choose "bigger" over "better" everytime. Usually. It is the nature of the beast.

I'd be willing to bet that NO American ammunition company looks at the 16 gauge cartridge as anything but a pain in their corporate ass. They do it, simply, because they have to. That is not to say they do 16 gauge loadings well, and that fact, as much as anything, may be why the 16 isn't King.

All my 20s (not a scientific sample, as there are only three, 1 double, 2 pumps) are lighter than my 2 16s. My lone 16 gauge double is a bit porky at 6 lbs 4 ozs.

But it sure is a sweetheart to shoot a 1 oz load in at that weight. The most popular gun at my house, but, if I couldn't get good English ammunition, I'd be screwed.
Best,
Ted

A post on the Upland Journal site http://www.uplandjournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=11527;hl=brian+meckler described a test of a 20 gauge M37. Forcing cone opened to 2-inches to start, choked 0.020-inches . Bore dia 0.615. Pattern tests with Remington loads from light field throught 3-inch Nitro Mags (#6 shot, if I recall). Tests were run as the barrel was opened 0.005-inches at a time with choke adjusted to remain 0.020 constriction.

Patterns at 0.615 were poor with all loads tested. At 0.620 patterns were better, but not good, even with the lighter loads. At 0.625 the ligher loads were much better, and the 3-inch loads were good. At 0.630 the patterns were excellent plus. Buffered 1-1/4oz Nitro Mags (6's and 4's) at over 80% - never want to trust my memory, so, the post is better for details.

Part of the explanation seemed to be that the wads were very hard to push through the 0.615 barrel. So hard, they were damaged by the effort. If narrowerer wads are available, the tighter bore may be able to do better.

The author of the post said he had difficulty getting 20 gauge to perform well. The test was done to see if bore size is a significant factor. Based in his results, I would say it is, at least, with modern wads. Used the M37 because the barrel is thick enough to take the overbore.

So, a 20 gauge can shoot very well, but the barrel at the start was very poor, and that is what many would use. We would not pattern test and see how bad it is.

Other than Invector Plus, Ruger RL and C. Geurini, I do not know what 20 gauge guns come overbored.

There was/is a post on the Shotgun Report on this subject in which the same load was patterned in three or more gauges. The reporter, Bruce Buck I believe, stated that the results showed that the larger the gauge the better the pattern and the less the "stringing". David

The term "square load" is some what misleading. The most significant factor is the shot column height. A one oz load would be "square" in a 16 gauge but a load with the same column height would not be "square" in any other gauge.

The second most important factor is the ratio of column wall area to volume. The shot next to the wall will suffer more deformation than the shot next in the center. It's this effect that modern plastic wads do the most to alleviate.

In practice, 1-1/8 oz in a 16, 1-1/4 ox in a 12, or 3/4 ox in a 28 will pattern well. The 20 and the 410 are overloaded. Especially the 410. I've always wondered why the 410 enjoys the popularity it does when anything the 410 will do the 28 does better. At least for the 20, proper loads are available, you don't have to overload it.

What hurts the 16 is the propensity for manufactures to build them on 12 gauge frames so they loose their potential weight advantage over the 12. If you have to lug a 12 gauge it might just as well have a 12 gauge hole through it.

Only the .410 is normally loaded heavier than the 28ga. A 7/8oz 20ga load "IS" a lighter load proportionate to gauge than is a 3/4 oz 28ga load. "If" loaded to the same shot column length in the bore a 20ga will carry 25% more shot, but have only 12% more bore contact area. Area of two cylinders of equal length are proportionate to the square of their dia's while while the area of the inner wall is proportionate to their dia's. Thus (.615/.550)² = 1.25, while .615/.550 = 1.12.
A 1oz load in a 16ga is a round ball equivelent load. It is not a square load as it's shot column length is greater than .662". According to a chart published by Hercules/Alliant in their reloaders guide it would average about .837", but they did not state shot size or alloy used. some slight variation can be expected, but not .175" in length. They calculated the volume of 1oz shot @ about .288CuIn.
Each higher numbered gauge is just a little smaller bore than the last one. There is absolutely no "Magic" involved in any of the sizes.
If you measure most "Modern" plastic wads in comparsion with the older wads, i believe you will find they "Are Smaller", in fact smaller than a "Normal" bore of the gauge. They all, at least all that I have dealt with require obturation of the base section for sealing. I take most of those "Overbore" claims with a big dose of salt.
As Sgt Joe Friday used to say " Just the Facts Ma'am, Nothing but the "Facts""

I notice my post says 0.020 choke - original post says 0.025 choke was maintained for the tests.

Remington hulls have some taper inside, which suggests their wads would not be as wide as those for straight hulls. But, the wad would not easily pass through the 20 gauge at 0.615 per the person running the tests. I would think Federal 20S1 would be wider than Rem, as Federal hulls are straight and thin. I will try to remember to measure some of each plus WAA20 just to see. Have no fiber 20 gauges wads to compare. Have some 12C1 that were created for paper hulls, which are thick compared with plastic, which suggests the wad might be narrower than ones for plastic hulls. The caliper will tell.

Looked at BPI where some of the Gualandi 20 gauge wad dimensions are posted. 0.610 for Sporting 20 to 0.615 for Trap Commander and Brush wad. Not oversized.

We sometimes read that larger gauges handle larger shot sizes better than smaller gauges. Something like up to 1 oz and 8 shot a 20 gauge typically keeps up. 16 gauge keeps up with #6, and 12 gauge is good with #4.