Originally Posted by Jerry Harlow (Post 302856)

At $1.20 a shell I don't think you can load them that cheaply, especially if you value your time to load that many. That is a great price. As for me, I would not hesitate to shoot them in my number 2 frame guns, Sterlingworths, etc. Just me.

Originally Posted by Pete Lester (Post 302816)

The slowest load you posted was at 1350 fps, that will produce 22% more recoil than an 1 1/4 ounce load going 1250. At 1400 fps recoil is 32% greater.

Just wondering why if both loads are 1 1/4 ounces, 100 fps more would produce 22% greater recoil and 200 fps 32%. What is the source for these percentage figures? In an 8 pound 2 frame gun(with two shells in the chambers)? Just looking for the source since I don't see or feel the same in one ounce target loads at 1150 fps compared to the one ounce hunting loads at 1250 fps. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Pete Lester (Post 302816)

The slowest load you posted was at 1350 fps, that will produce 22% more recoil than an 1 1/4 ounce load going 1250. At 1400 fps recoil is 32% greater.

Just wondering why if both loads are 1 1/4 ounces, 100 fps more would produce 22% greater recoil and 200 fps 32%. What is the source for these percentage figures? In an 8 pound 2 frame gun(with two shells in the chambers)? Just looking for the source since I don't see or feel the same in one ounce target loads at 1150 fps compared to the one ounce hunting loads at 1250 fps. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jerry Harlow (Post 302853)

If memory serves(ha-ha) Tom Roster did an article for Shooting Sportsman 4-5 or more years ago on that subject . You pay a stiff price in recoil for a small increase in velocity. The bigger downside is how fast that added velocity is lost.
It may seem counter- intuitive but the 100 fps gain does not carry downrange at that increase but at 40 yds. is negligible.

Originally Posted by Pete Lester (Post 302865)

I tried that website to see how they came up with their calculations which I believe are way too high, but it is blocked telling me it is a dangerous website (?).

As I stated before, if their calculations are correct, I should notice quite a bit of difference between 1 ounce loads going 1150 fps (2 3/4 dram equivalent), 1200 fps (3 dram equivalent), and 1250 fps (3 1/4 dram equivalent), but I have never felt a 22% increase in recoil between the first and the third load, which if the chart is correct would apply.

Here is what Tom Roster has to say about lead and tungsten for velocities and then what he clearly states for loads with shot that is less dense than lead, for which he supports higher velocities:

"...the science-based reality that with lead and nontoxic tungsten-composite pellet hunting loads possessing lead shot equivalent pellet densities, all you need for effective (spelled: lethal) velocity is something near 1250 fps ± 50 fps. For steel loads, all that is needed is something near 1350 fps ± 50 fps."

Bismuth as we know is not lead equivalent (but denser than steel); therefore Tom Roster is recommending between 1300 and 1400 fps for stuff less than lead. I believe that is why Hevi-shot has loaded their "Hevi Bismuth" shells that are "FOR MODERN AND CLASSIC GUNS" at 1400 fps. I feel certain that they have done more testing than any of us could ever imagine before releasing their product and advertising that they were "safe" for classic guns. They apparently know something about downrange velocities as well.

I do know for sure that modern steel loads at these extremely high velocities are like night and day compared to the initial steel loads first brought onto the market that were being pushed at normal velocities of 1200 fps. I forbade those goose hunting with me to use the early loads. They too have seen the need for higher downrange velocities. To each his own and I won't argue with whatever someone else is successful with but I always look for an edge for not every shot I make is perfect and I hate wounded game birds.