doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com On plated shot ...

I shot over 3,000 patterns looking for ultimate long range performance back in the 80s. I do not fault Dr. Jones' efforts, and I apologize if I sound high handed, but other than as a mathematical exercise, I didn't "get it" is the only way I can put it. Analyzing patterns with small shot at Sporting ranges struck me sort of like optimizing a Chevy Impala to circulate LeMans at 60 miles an hour, versus tweaking a Ferrari or Porsche to hit 200 on the straight and average well over a 100. I make no claims to being an accomplished statistician or mathematician. I did find that when comparing the effect of a variable I did get down to comparing 10 shot averages the get conclusive at the end of each trial.
I was quite satisfied with my results, but I am still rather mystified at how George Diggweed manages to do a lot of what he does, with what he uses. That guy just amazes me.

It is my understanding that either nickel or copper are solid lubricants used to prevent bridging and binding as shot transitions thru the forcing cones. Hard shot doesn't deform either upon acceleration or forcing as easily as soft shot. All the bagged shot I have ever seen is graphite coated for the same reason at less expense than plating of whatever thickness. If you plate soft shot it still deforms just maybe not as much as unplated of the same alloy. Both hardness (alloy) and lubrication matter. The real issue is how much are you willing to pay and in what volume of consumption.

Here's a little interesting old shotgun trivia for you.....

As printed in the "History of Bullets" 1st Edition 1958...:


The increasing of the size of the shotgun, and the size of the individual pellets of shot, can be used to increase range only to a limited extent. There are several disadvantages inherent in this. Few men today shoot enough to swing a 10 1/2 pound gun. However, in the past certain arrangements have been tried for much greater increases in effective range, even to more than 100 yards. During the muzzle loading era in Britain, a kind of wire cup made by Eley retained the shot all in one cluster inside the cup for perhaps 50 or 60 yards, and then let them fly free.

Shrapnel Spherical and Elongated Shot Shells had two shell segments filled with shot and were held together by a light wire spindle. The entire assembly was loaded into a shotshell with wad end down. When fired, the device traveled intact for a distance and then the wire spindle separated from the shell segments releasing the shot. An effective range of 95 to 140 yards was claimed.

A bit later, a patented shell was used to contain the entire shot charge. The two halves of the shell did not come apart and release the shot inside until a predetermined range had been reached. This range could be varied when the shell was loaded; in theory at least, a sportsman could change the effective range of his weapon at will. The advertisers of this scheme claimed that the entire shot charge could be put in a 30" circle at 130 yards. It would seem highly unlikely that this device worked in the way that it's proponents said that it did, "even though William Greener spoke well of the idea." Besides, who can hit any form of shotgun target at 130 yards ?

The Modern Shotgun has reached an advanced state of development. Ammunition for it is extremely reliable. It's efficient use, however, requires agility, coordination and practice.

Because of the drastically reduced bag limits today, few hunters, if any, can hope to learn to use a heavy ten bore Magnum on ducks and still fire well with a seven pound twelve bore on upland game. The trend is towards smaller bores and reasonable amounts of medium sized shot. Individual skill is far more important than extra gun performance. Any shotgun usually has a best load for each size of shot. The man who finds out what this is and sticks to it with plenty of practice will be hard to beat.

Certainly no offense take by me as to your observations and questions. A major question in my mind is why Oberfeld and Thomas didn't treat their data statistically.

DDA

I buy it for turkey hunting and that's it. I have no idea if the stuff actually gives better penetration, but that's why I buy it. No more than I shoot the extra cost is nothing and it also makes me feel like I'm trying to be a more responsible hunter. I've also heard it patterns better, but I can't see much difference on paper that I wouldn't possibly attribute to some other variable.

Brister had very good things to say about Winchester's old Lubaloy and the patterns it produced. However, in addition to plating, those loads were also buffered.

Re Dr. Jones' work, I'd have more confidence in it if he hadn't made such a point about the frequency at which targets are broken by a single pellet. I don't know that there's any way to count how many single pellet hits result in breaks, but I do know of a way to prove that single pellet hits quite frequently do NOT break targets. That's simply to look for unbroken targets on the field and see how many have one hole in them. Not at all hard to find. Sometimes even 2 holes. Makes me wonder whether there might also be a hole in his conclusions.

Isn't the Fiocci Golden Pheasant load a nickel plated shot?

They call it plated but, the rub is knowing if it really has a thick enough coating to truly be plated, or if it is just more of the nickel washed shot, which may be no better than simple hard lead shot.

SRH

DDA

I like Doug's "each shotgun has a best load for each size of shot." I have seen powder changes accomplish much even though no other component change was made! It also may be that one gun shoots plated 8s with one powder well, and magnum unplated 8s with another powder altogether. How do you analyze whether it was the shot or the powder that made the difference? And it would be important to me to know if the plated shot was hard antimony shot...in my opinion BP nickel plated shot is rather soft. Steve