I have learned that certain materials "seem" to pattern better at certain speeds. High velocity lead loads absolutely do cause pellet deformation. I did a lengthy presentation on that in gunsmithing college. Steel seemed to pattern irradically mostly based on wad type, and length over constriction. The more abruptly the pellets are choked equaled more blown open patterns.longer forcing cones and longe4 parallel sections in the choke definitely did help evenly distribute pellets. BUT, did it matter when it came to pellets fired at game? Nope. They all still resulted in dead birds.
Great test. It opens up a lot of questions. Which could be answered with more tests to get a larger sample size. Unfortunately this is very expensive nowadays. I for one will try to accumulate data a little bit at a time. Not The best way but it's all I can afford.
Awesome I was convinced the 1300fos is the ticket. I would like to see some more chokes used in this test but you are one of the few cutting through the BS for all our benefit thank you so much!!!!
I’d like to see this test done with a 5 shot average. There are so many variables when dealing with over 200 individual projectiles per shot. It could have been a lucky shot for one and an unlucky shot for the other. At least we have good penetration data though. The 5 shot average is a lot more counting but it’s also a lot more valuable information than a single shot. Thanks for the videos.
I would also like to see someone do this test 5 times. But it's not gonna be me, lol. It's a 2 hour job to go and just do this video. It's not just 5x the counting but 5x the setup, 5x the paper and reactive targets and tape and marking pens, and 5x the editing. It's alot.
I dont understand how your results are valid with a single shot. no two shots pattern the same. why wouldn't you shoot 5 times and take the average in a 30in circle to produce a better statistic. appreciate the videos either way
3 main reasons. First, that doesn't work like people think it does. You would have to shoot 5 separate targets and average their circles. Shooting 5 shots at one circle will never give you a precise measure of any one pattern, it produces inferior data with the appearance of precision, unless you have a scope and lead sled. Shooting 5 targets absolutely would yield better data. Same with the gel. But that means buying, setting up, shooting, and counting 5x the targets. So instead of the 2 hours needed to go out and do 1 video, it would take not quite 5x, but maybe 8 hours. And the cost would increase 5x. I don't have the time, budget, or energy for that. I work a full time job and do this with time I could be spending with my family. And lastly, there are several loads I have shot 5+ times across different pattern tests, and the variation from one shot to the next in terms of total pellet count is usually pretty minimal. You wouldn't get a 90% on shot 1 and a 70% on shot 2. A 90% pattern on one paper is only going to go up or down a couple points across tests.
I’ve seen the idea of 4 or 5 shots at one target… how do you tell if your load you are testing is consistent shot to shot? Shoot separate targets each time and you get a better picture of how that load preforms across a few shots.
Back in the day. When there were no chokes in shotguns. To tighten paterns you increased the load, 1 1/2Oz or more(2 3/4")at about 1.100 Fps. Modern components(Extra hard Shot, Buffering, Improoved wads) Great variety of chokes
We keep being told higher velocity loads pattern worse and they don’t penetrate any better because they slow down faster. Thanks for the real world test George. Your time is appreciated.
That’s not why slower loads typically pattern better. It’s because that statement is based off of lead loadings, which suffer varying degrees of shot deformation upon firing due to setback increasing with velocity. Steel, however, does not suffer from this.
Simply untrue with the slowing down faster part. The ballistic coefficient/BC is actually affected positively by higher velocities in more than one way. To a point, higher velocity actually gives better BC. At supersonic speeds the BC is always better than at subsonic speeds, the faster shot will remain supersonic farther, the faster load will often travel farther in the wad or as a tight clump and as a result cut through the air more like a slug than individual shot thereby further increasing velocity retention. All these seemingly small advantages will stack resulting in a considerable difference in down range performance. Sorry to be a TLDR nerd, but that's the gist of it. Bear in mind I'm going by my knowledge of rifle bullets and musket balls, but I'm sure the same rules apply with shot.
@@TheDks300 That sounds right. But the internet is on fire right now with people preaching slower steel is the answer because it patterns better. Hence the need to put it to the test for people.
I love the testing. In my anecdotal experience I think that the higher velocities with steel are better to a point. I assume this is because steel shot doesn't have the deformation issues lead and I assume bismuth shot does. In patterning I have done with lead and steel shells lead really seems to degrade pattern wise precipitously once you get above 1300 fps. The higher density of those materials does wonders in offsetting the lower velocity however. Patterns are also fickle with tons of factors impacting how they work and the only way to really know is to check with your gun, load, and choke with the ammo you are planning to use.
Great info again George! Btw, these are some of the best videos on YT ( especially for hunters and sportsmen alike). They're clear, concise and easy to follow not to mention very well made! Keep up the good work George and be encouraged! 👍🙏 And subscribe to his channel people!😠👀☺
The word on the street is that a high speed steel cartridge sends the shot so fast that they go through instead of giving the chock-effect. I shoot 3" Winchester Drylok and they are fast and hard...
I think pass through shots are ideal. But most steel doesn't have the potentcy to do that, no matter the starting velocity unless the shots are at close range or the pellets are oversized. You see it more with tss.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I shoot ducks and alike and "in the good old days" a majority of the lead pellets stopped in the skin of for example the Eider. Now they are in the meat and I find it harder to get them to die instantly. I have not tried the BlindSide with the dice formed shots, I know that I probably should 😔. When I shot #3 lead the skin was full of pellets and just a few in the meat, when I shoot #3 steel a few are in the skin, many in the meat and a few all the way in the internal organs. I just find it annoying if they shatter bones. I think it has to do with significantly higher speed and harder shots that don't deform at impact, but I might be wrong... Thank you for the videos, we/many learn alot even when we don't allways agree 👍🏼😅!
Nice one again -but I would always go with the shell with more shot as the fringe has more pellets and a wider distribution: no one can guarantee to hit a duck with the centre every time.
Its a good question. Shotgun chronographing is less reliable. I was about to buy a chrono and when I learned my results likely wouldn't be valid it took the wind out of my sails. You have to spend alot to get one that is ideal for shotguns.
I think what this test is alluding to is that hard non deforming shot such as steel, tungsten alloy, tss is less susceptible to pattern disruption by slapped bc the shot does not deform at set back and once it hits the choke.
Great video… since steel is harder than lead, at higher velocities there will be less pellet deformation. When I pattern shot and choke I collect pellet count within 12”, 24” & 30” therefore I can examine pattern and shot density. Wish I could post an image of how I collect data.
Knowing your gun and how it pattern it doesn't matter the speed as much as speed is considered in the equation. Practice practice practice and pay attention to what George is saying. Keep up the great video and learning information. Terry Clark in Alabama 73s.
The only difference in the speed of these shells is trama and slightly different in hole size on harvested game birds. the distance of dead or knocked out birds. Back in the early 90’s, I only had a modified choke. Decoyed birds 4’s and pass shooting 2’s. BB for extend range and geese.
There are two experimental variables; velocity and payload - so which is responsible for the pattern difference? Both loads are over-choked for even small waterfowl where you probably only need about 145 pellets in a 30-inch circle. I believe you have a video that talks about the inefficiency of extreme pattern density, and another video that shows at 40 yards the 30" circle pellet count difference between 1 3/8, 1 1/2, and 1 5/8 bismuth is essentially unchanged. The extra pellets fall outside of the 30" circle and provide a larger overall pattern. With that in mind, your conclusion is probably incorrect. The 1300 fps and also heavier payload shell actually produced a better pattern, but unexpectedly, not a tighter one. It's still dense enough to be lethal (and could be less dense and still be lethal) but as more pellets are outside of the 30" circle the overall size of the pattern is wider and so the killing area of the pattern is larger. Penetration wise #4 steel appears to be a marginal 40-yard pellet choice for birds bigger than teal. The 1300 fps shell is at the end of its effective range and I'm betting the 1500 fps shell will be in the same boat at 45 yards. Very cool though it made me think.
Yea, you could probably choke either to get whatever pattern distribution you like. The pattern potential, which is essentially what we were testing here, is off the chart for both loads. They will both run out of power before they run out of pattern at long range.
Keep in my the low velocity load had more pay load than the fast load if we had the same payload for both loads and same exact wads we would a better test then this example. And did you said in one of your video that more payload doesn't give you better patterns?
Yes I did. That'd a fact. But I don't know any companies that make am identical load with just different velocity. They all add shot when they decrease velocity.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide what you may need to do is find guys that reload shells from everything from steel shot to tss and see if they can send you some for testing for more information for us
@@clks1165 I don't know that it's worth it. A purely academic study doesn't produce actionable results. If people can't go buy the shells, then the video is only useful to the highest tier of enthusiasts. I like to keep things practical and only use available factory ammo.
I bought both with my own money. But 5x the shots means 5x the paper, targets shells, setup, counting, editing, walking back and forth down range etc. Instead of 2 hours to make 1 video, it would be closer to 8. Amd 5x the hard cost. Plus in my experience having shot numerous shells across multiple videos multiple times, the variation is pretty much never drastic. A few percent variance. Oh the patterns may look very different but core pattern density is usually about the same.
@@TheNewHuntersGuidegotcha, I thought you said someone sent you the ammo in the first minute of this video. I think one of the loudest voices against the high velocity hype is Jim Mullers. He also puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of taking 4-5 shots inside a 30” circle at 40 yards due to variations from shot to shot. Either way I really appreciate you doing this test and I understand it would be a lot more work to shoot 8 more times. Makes me want to go try it myself especially with so many people clicking their opposing opinions. Thanks again and good luck this season!
@@mktampabay1 Jimmy recommends doing 5 shots at one sheet of paper and then averaging the results. That works fine for back yard testing but it doesn't measure the same thing I'm going for. The 30" circle is going to move some between shots, even with a tripod. So you can only do 1 shot per paper if you want precise measurements of pattern potential. You then average those 5 papers, rather than adding up the pellets in a predetermined location and dividing by 5. It's a subtle difference but you are measuring different things with different levels of precision. I like Jimmy, he's brilliant and he's probably right most of the time. This test just demonstrates that rule of thumb is not true across the board all the time. Always test your loads in your setup.
I think this is great but wonder if lead and bismuth are a bigger concern with speed due to softer metal and deformation. A lot of trap shooters have shown low antimony lead shot is terrible with very high velocity. Steel is very low deformation and 1500 fps seems fine. Your title is waterfowl ammo so obviously lead isn’t used.
You could do a tear down of shells when it's feasible. Not saying you should, but it would add another piece of data that might interest some viewers. To see the shot cup/wad design and maybe even weigh the powder charge would be a welcomed addition in my book. A waste of a shell and your time, but an even more thorough review.
patterning doesn't just consider pellet count...how even the pellets are displaced around the 30 in circle is, in my mind, defines 'patterning' better. What does Jimmy Muller have to say about lower velocities?
Have you ever done a test to see how the Boss Legacy or Warchiefs pattern at both at varying distances (maybe 20 and 40). I like the boss 5s but I’m trying to find a choke that patterns decent enough at both distances.
Slower velocity had an all around better pattern for me. Better spacing and pellet count than faster velocity. I load my own shells so I can get down in the 1200 range.
You can only buy the loads you can buy. The test is flawless in that respect. Only about 1-2% of shotgun shooters are handloaders. For everyone else, these are the options.
That is an insane amount of recoil. Line up 3 targets and see how long it takes to recover from each shot and move to the next target. Vs crossing speed of ducks..lol??
Actually it's pretty average to tame for duck loads. I take your point. And I preach your point to others. But these are tame for duck loads. The 3.5 shells are over the top. They can half almost double the recoil of these.
How much does barrell length affect to the pattern? @kettulan veikot compared same gun with same choke 26" and 28" barrells. They got result that longer barrell had better pattern.
I have found no difference in barrell length to pattern potential. 24 vs 28 seems to do the same. Some barrells may do better with some loads and chokes than others just because every barrell is different. But I haven't seen anything yet that indicates length is a factor, unless you go super short. Then a big velocity drop may effect things.
That was definitely not what I expected, due to what I’ve read and what I’ve been told. Just goes to show you that you can’t just go by what you hear from others.
I'm seeing more and more that the slower = better patterns concept is a by product of lead ammo and other metals that deform due to high Excelleration. Steel doesn't deform, so the main using for it seems like it doesn't apply.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I think just to make an affordable bismuth load to shoot. It’s got the full length wad just like the warchief but no buffer. They got promo codes to use as well that saves you money.
Its not hard to find good patterning #4 shells. Please do this again with bb. I find the bigger the steel shot the harder it is to find good patterening shells.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide looking forward to it! It's all interesting to me because I've hit live birds with 1300 fps and then turn around and do the same with 1165 but speed always seems to up my percentage
It's possible. But with 200 pellets on the paper with the cheaper option, I don't see playing with the choke to be worth it. That performance is off the charts. It's actually too many pellets. Modified with both is probably all that you need, and both will give you more than enough pellets. It just seems like you pay more to have less penetration with the one. There's not really any functional benefit to the slower load here.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Absolutely false statement… I’ve seen slow motion video that depicted the time it took for shot to arrive, proving a shot string theory without a shadow of a doubt.
Look up Surviving Duck Season. He used a super slow motion camera to capture the shot string of several loads. Watch that and then come back and try to convince us that a six foot long shot string at 600 fps ( an average velocity at 40 yards ) makes ANY difference whatsoever. Or, you could just hold onto your old myth and continue to criticize the people that are actually testing these shells.
@@BrokenBarBox What has been confusing me is people have watched that same video, listened to the obvious conclusions Joel states, and somehow walked away thinking the opposite was true. I totally agree, it's the most conclusive evidence ever obtained that shot string is a non-variable for hunting.
Because it patterns tighter than any other choke tune I've tested. Why would ever second guess shooting through a full choke? Assuming the choke is rated for the load.
