12 bore load discussion....1200 fps vs 1325 fps loads

[Tom Flanigan]

Jeff Christie sent me a personal message recently. He said that he uses the 1 ¼ 12 bore 1200 fps load data that I sent him years ago and was impressed with the results of using that load. I was going to give him the background of my preference for this load in a return pm but decided to make it public because it might be of some interest to a general audience……….

Jeff, my enthusiasm for the 1 ¼ 1200 fps 12 bore loads is because of my experience with them. I have patterned both and the 1200 fps loads were more consistent and patterned better by an appreciable degree.

I decided to run a test on the two loads on one of my annual trips to Saskatchewan. The test was done before the lead ban in Canada which lagged the US ban by a couple of years. It is a great area for a test because of the enormous population of birds. I shot the first week with the 1325 fps loads and the second week with the 1200 fps loads. The birds shot were four different species of geese and mallards. There are many different species of ducks where I shoot, but I decided to only shoot greenheads to keep from limiting out too soon.

I tried hard to keep subjectivity out of my assessment. I truly wanted to see if the 1325 fps loads, despite the more favorable 1200 fps patterns, really did provide a benefit despite the greater recoil. To summarize the results, the 1200 fps loads provided more dead in the air birds to the degree that it was certainly noticeable. My tests were nowhere near scientific or empirical but I believe the results were worthy of consideration based on the number of birds shot.

The recoil reduction of the 1200 fps vs. the 1325 fps loads is very noticeable. Those who say they don’t feel recoil when shooting game have never shot at high incoming overhead birds with a 1325 fps load. A further benefit of the 1200 fps load is the lower pressures and the lower impact on old wood.

I don’t shoot at over 40 yards so it can be argued that beyond 40 yards might be where the 1325 fps load provides benefit, but I truly doubt it. My current load for waterfowl is 1 1/8 oz. of Bismuth at just under 1200 fps. My results are similar to the 1 ¼ 1200 fps loads. It is now my opinion that at 40 yards and under, the 1 ¼ oz. load provides little benefit over the 1 1/8 oz. load. Further, It is my opinion that no gamebirds should be shot at over 40 yards because of the increased risk of loss.

[Dean Romig]

I see no benefit of the faster loads other than reducing the lead you allow. And I think the negatives you list can be agreed by most shooters of classic sxs guns.




.

[Woodcock survey]

Dean i believe there has been a lot of study by among others ,Tom Roster, about speed and lead. The conclusion being that the reduction is so small as to be useless. It may give some a physiological boost, causing them to have confidence in their abilities but is of no practical use.

[Dean Romig]

Well that’s another reason I’m glad I don’t use it.





.

[Harry Gietler]

Originally Posted by Tom Flanigan

Jeff Christie sent me a personal message recently. He said that he uses the 1 ¼ 12 bore 1200 fps load data that I sent him years ago and was impressed with the results of using that load. I was going to give him the background of my preference for this load in a return pm but decided to make it public because it might be of some interest to a general audience……….

Jeff, my enthusiasm for the 1 ¼ 1200 fps 12 bore loads is because of my experience with them. I have patterned both and the 1200 fps loads were more consistent and patterned better by an appreciable degree.

I decided to run a test on the two loads on one of my annual trips to Saskatchewan. The test was done before the lead ban in Canada which lagged the US ban by a couple of years. It is a great area for a test because of the enormous population of birds. I shot the first week with the 1325 fps loads and the second week with the 1200 fps loads. The birds shot were four different species of geese and mallards. There are many different species of ducks where I shoot, but I decided to only shoot greenheads to keep from limiting out too soon.

I tried hard to keep subjectivity out of my assessment. I truly wanted to see if the 1325 fps loads, despite the more favorable 1200 fps patterns, really did provide a benefit despite the greater recoil. To summarize the results, the 1200 fps loads provided more dead in the air birds to the degree that it was certainly noticeable. My tests were nowhere near scientific or empirical but I believe the results were worthy of consideration based on the number of birds shot.

The recoil reduction of the 1200 fps vs. the 1325 fps loads is very noticeable. Those who say they don’t feel recoil when shooting game have never shot at high incoming overhead birds with a 1325 fps load. A further benefit of the 1200 fps load is the lower pressures and the lower impact on old wood.

I don’t shoot at over 40 yards so it can be argued that beyond 40 yards might be where the 1325 fps load provides benefit, but I truly doubt it. My current load for waterfowl is 1 1/8 oz. of Bismuth at just under 1200 fps. My results are similar to the 1 ¼ 1200 fps loads. It is now my opinion that at 40 yards and under, the 1 ¼ oz. load provides little benefit over the 1 1/8 oz. load. Further, It is my opinion that no gamebirds should be shot at over 40 yards because of the increased risk of loss.

26grs. Herco--1-1/4oz.--#5 OR #6--Excellent Load for Crows & Pigeon's

[10 bore]

I also have done a lot of pattern testing over the last 10 to 15 years with different shot sizes and speeds. What i found out was lighter and slower (1145 to 1200 fps )loads shot the best and most even patterns also i found 6 s shot the best patterns but by only a couple percentage points in each test.
Scott

[todd allen]

My understanding of shotgun ballistics is that the terminal speed at 40 yards is almost the same, regardless of what speed the shot started at.
I read this somewhere, maybe Brister. Don't remember.
But the point is, if the shot is traveling relatively the same speed at the target from an 1100 fps load, as it would from a 1300 something fps load, why suffer the additional abuse?

[Dean Romig]

1,33 minus 1,100 equals 200 fps

There are 5,280 feet in a mile,
A bird or clay target traveling at 40 mph covers 1.46 fps according to my calculations. Then you need to figure in angle of flight and trajectory.

I think there really is a difference in the lead the shooter should allow.





.

[Carl G. Bachhuber]

Ballistically spheres do not do well and right around the speed of sound they especially do not work well. A #4 lead pellet starting at 1325 feet/sec. gets to 40 yards in approximately .126 sec. with a retained velocity of about 749 feet a second. That same pellet starting at 1200 feet/sec. gets to 40 yards in about .135 seconds with a retained velocity of about 708 feet/sec.. So at the start there is about 125 feet/sec. difference but it has dwindled to less than half that at 40 yards. The .01 sec time difference would get you about .9 feet less lead on a 60 mph bird. To my mind the extra abuse of the higher velocity doesn't really buy you much.
C.G.B.

[todd allen]

Yes. I always put the extra .9 feet of lead into consideration on my 35" pattern at 40 yds
;-)