And the pretty pattern on paper looks nothing like what is going on. And other than confirming POI, when the difference can be between 5 and 15 feet in length, staring at it tells you little.
Bob Brister would have had a ball with this technology.
Really interesting that some of the pellets were overtaking others at 40 yards.
Once the shot string lengths are determined a large scale blind study of the shell with shortest shot string vs the longest would be very interesting reading.
One of the differences is that Brister was shooting at a moving target and this test is at a stationary target. Brister's test then should show a longer shot string.
I've always heard the point way the 28 gauge was so popular and so what's the correct word productive compared to the 20 was shot string length . Guess the same could be said for 16 versus 12..
That would be the theory of a "square" load as the 3/4 oz of the 28 and the 1 oz of the 16 ga are close to the same height as width. Every shotshell has a square load but not necessarily in factory form.
That said, it is pretty much an old wives' tale as more shot is more shot with the real determining factors being shot hardness and shot protection from setback forces and bore scrubbing. In the case of the 28 ga, a large reason for its better performance was due to high quality components as it was primarily a target gun with high quality components being compared to the typical 20 ga game load that used lesser quality components. Compare the two apples to apples and one will find the 20 ga reforming better in the long run.
With the 16 ga, the 12 ga can outperform them 16 in every way due to the 16 ga technology stalling in the 1980s. The popularity of the 16 ga fell below that of the 28 around that time which was about 2% of the market at that time. With such limited demand and nothing in formal compitition, the 16 languishes on the best of days and is on life support most others. That is tough to say as I favor the 16 ga though I am down to a mere 6 of them.
They may not be truly definitive but the generalities are pretty sound. High antimony round shot given good protection against deformation by set back forces and bore scrub are going to produce shorter shot strings than loads utilizing low antimony shot and poor protection against deformation. One can gain a little shorter shot string using plated (not washed) shot with a buffer between shot. That was the "secret" to Winchester's Super X Double X loads which Federal and later Remington tried to recreate.
Round steel shot produces even less of a shot string than even the best lead loads due to its roundness and resistance to deformation. This can be an asset or a hinderance in some situations and is one reason for Federal's Black Cloud and Winchester's equivalent.
I believe shot string length is more important than patterns on a piece of paper but neither are foremost in my mind. The expected use is the main determiner with the load utilizing the higher grade of components being chosen for the more demanding situations. For the rest the lower quality will typically suffice at the minimum.
Better shot quality obtained from uniform hard high-antimony shot results in shorter shot strings. It also gives us better performance on targets and birds.
Whether less shot string, of itself, results in better performance is not as easily established. And the vid, though interesting, does not help with that.
Inside 35 yards where most of us can consistently connect, shot string length makes little difference. Point accurately and use a shot size that is adequate for the particular Bird and all the known shells will give excellent results.
I really like some of the Fiocchi and Apex TSS offerings. Going to try some Kent Bismuth shortly. I doubt I’ll notice any difference at those ranges. The results would also most likely be the same with Remington, Winchester, Federal, etc.
Get into the 50 yard ranges and a short string would most likely have an advantage if one has the the skills to connect consistently. I don’t, and have watched enough to know few do.
In a following video he says either short or long, the entire string passes thru the target so quickly…like in the blink of an eye…. that it may make little difference.
The original video being in slow motion is deceiving. He also disproves some of the claims of Patternmaster chokes. It was interesting that a factory modified, had a shorter string with all tests.
Inside 35 yards where most of us can consistently connect, shot string length makes little difference. Point accurately and use a shot size that is adequate for the particular Bird and all the known shells will give excellent results.
I really like some of the Fiocchi and Apex TSS offerings. Going to try some Kent Bismuth shortly. I doubt I’ll notice any difference at those ranges. The results would also most likely be the same with Remington, Winchester, Federal, etc.
Get into the 50 yard ranges and a short string would most likely have an advantage if one has the the skills to connect consistently. I don’t, and have watched enough to know few do.
At 50 yards I wonder what the shot string that actually hits the intended target looks like.
That being 2-10 pellets depending on shot size and target size.
The last time that bear ate a lawyer he had the runs for 33 days!
One of the differences is that Brister was shooting at a moving target and this test is at a stationary target. Brister's test then should show a longer shot string.
Really...?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
If the gun shoots where you point it, and the shell has the right size pellets in it, does it really matter how long the shot string is?
It doesn’t so long as shots are relatively close, say inside 35 or 40 yards or so. You also don’t get to choose the angles. Hard shot and good wads are the makings of good patterns and shorter shot strings.
If the gun shoots where you point it, and the shell has the right size pellets in it, does it really matter how long the shot string is?
It doesn’t so long as shots are relatively close, say inside 35 or 40 yards or so. You also don’t get to choose the angles. Hard shot and good wads are the makings of good patterns and shorter shot strings.
So, a shorter shot string will mean more hits from poor shots?
If the gun shoots where you point it, and the shell has the right size pellets in it, does it really matter how long the shot string is?
It doesn’t so long as shots are relatively close, say inside 35 or 40 yards or so. You also don’t get to choose the angles. Hard shot and good wads are the makings of good patterns and shorter shot strings.
So, a shorter shot string will mean more hits from poor shots?
A poor shot is likely not helped by a shorter string. While the debate over the effect of shot string length will go for a long time, I look a short shot strings as a side benefit - the biggest value of using hard shot and good wads is in keeping a higher percentage of shot in the pattern. It is logical that more shot hitting the target in a shorter time is an advantage. Some say that is why a standard 28 gauge load is so effective.
