Kent Bismuth in 12 gauge Trojan

[Tom Flanigan]

I agree with Dean. I also don't think the hot 1 1/4 oz loads at 1325 fps. are the most effective. My duck guns patterned the old pigeon load of 1 1/4 at 1200 fps. better. I did a test in Sasketechawan of the +1300 fps loads vs. the 1200 fps. loads. In addition to a significant reduction in recoil, I definitely had more ducks dead in the air with the 1200 fps. loads. I could tell difference. I think it was the shorter shot string of the lower velocity loads that made the difference. I don't know for sure and my test was far from scientific, but I am covinced that the +1300 loads do not perform as well as the 1200 fps. loads. I never use +1300 1 1/4 oz. loads for anything after that test.

[Scott Chapman]

I have a MEC 500 and have found a load for AA hulls, RP12 wads, 1 1/4 oz bismuth and longshot powder at 1250 fps. Listed at 7500 psi. I'll have to set it up!

[Cold Spring]

Many seem to have forgotten that the 12 ga/1-1/4 ounce so-called “high brass” progressive load was the standard over many decades in all manner of steel-barreled shotguns for ducks, geese, pheasants, turkeys, foxes, etc. Yup, 1-1/4 ounce of lead shot at 1330 speed.

So, other than the shot material, what’s different about the ballistics of the new Kent Bismuth load that was cited in the first posting here?

[Tom Flanigan]

Yes, the 12 bore 1 ¼ oz load at +1300 fps was “standard” for many years. That is why you see so many vintage guns that saw a lot of service with cracks behind the tang, some small and some large. Try finding an L.C. Smith that was used a lot without cracks behind the lock plates. Some is due to poor design but heavy loads exasperated the situation. I have repaired cracks in many Parkers around and behind the tang. We have more information now and know more than our predecessors who pounded those guns with heavy loads. Now years later, we are privy to the results of the effects of those loads. We can learn from history and not continue to make the mistakes of the past. Virtually every Parker I own that has seen a lot of service is cracked behind the tang. And over the years, I have repaired many others guns with the same issue. I don’t believe 1 ¼ oz loads at +1300 should ever be used in a vintage gun, some of which are over 100 years old. It makes no sense to do so.

[todd allen]

All these years have taught me this. When shooting a SxS, go with the lightest load that gets the job done.
One ounce at about 1150 fps, or so, should be your benchmark. 1 1/8 oz should be considered on the heavier side. 1 1/4 oz should be your max. The reloading bench is your friend, if you're going into the heavier loads. First, find out how a 1 oz. load works for you, and be prepared to be amazed.
The beauty of a well crafted, good handling side by side, is to run loads through it that compliment the concept. Otherwise, get a Benelli autoloader.

[Tom Flanigan]

I have to say Amen to that. I have extensive game shooting experience over 55 years. I carefully pattern all of my guns and have tested different loads on game, most notably on ducks and geese on the breeding and staging grounds of Saskatchewan over many years. My conclusion from all my experience is that sensible loads are best, by far. The 1 oz. 12 bore load, as an example, is a wonderfully effective load that patterns extremely well. I would not feel handicapped in the least with that load on ducks as long as the range is kept to around 35 yards or a bit more. Many would be amazed at just how effective and efficient that load is.

I use the old pigeon load on ducks, geese and turkeys because I like the denser patterns of the 1 1/4 oz load at 1200 fps on geese and ducks to 45 yards. But I would feel very comfortable if I was forced to use only the 1 oz. load. I'll be frank, it is my opinion that the 12 bore 1 1/4 oz load at 1300+ is an abomination in a vintage double. Strong words, but my extensive experience backs up my opinion.

[Cold Spring]

Originally Posted by Tom Flanigan

…… I use the old pigeon load on ducks, geese and turkeys because I like the denser patterns of the 1 1/4 oz load at 1200 fps on geese and ducks to 45 yards. But I would feel very comfortable if I was forced to use only the 1 oz. load. I'll be frank, it is my opinion that the 12 bore 1 1/4 oz load at 1300+ is an abomination in a vintage double. Strong words, but my extensive experience backs up my opinion.

Just wondering, where is it you're using the old pigeon load for ducks and geese? Lead shot has been banned for waterfowl since 1991 in the US and since 1999 in Canada. That includes coppered lead shot as generally used in pigeon loads.

[Cold Spring]

This must be our age of enlightenment …. well I'm so happy to learn that old time serious duck hunters like Buckingham, Sheldon and Askins got it all wrong, using 1-1/4 and 1-3/8-ounce heavy progressive loads when ducks wouldn't work the decoys and taking longish shots over the water and against the sky, both where it's so hard to estimate actual distance. How many can resist that temptation nowadays? Those I named and others of great experience must have just plain fell for the hype in all those long range tech articles by professional ballisticians and were duped by adverts by the likes of Western, Ajax and Peters.

Good to know that some of you have the skill to center punch ducks flying at different speeds, distances and varying angles with modern efficient loads. Great! Good shooting! Me, I often can't do that and might hit the bird with the fringe of the pattern. I always liked that saying about the difference between 1-ounce and 1-1/4-ounce ….. "when the gun goes bang that extra 1/4-ounce has to go somewhere".

[Tom Flanigan]

Originally Posted by Frank Srebro

This must be our age of enlightenment …. well I'm so happy to learn that old time serious duck hunters like Buckingham, Sheldon and Askins got it all wrong, using 1-1/4 and 1-3/8-ounce heavy progressive loads when ducks wouldn't work the decoys and taking longish shots over the water and against the sky, both where it's so hard to estimate actual distance. How many can resist that temptation nowadays? Those I named and others of great experience must have just plain fell for the hype in all those long range tech articles by professional ballisticians and were duped by adverts by the likes of Western, Ajax and Peters.

Good to know that some of you have the skill to center punch ducks flying at different speeds, distances and varying angles with modern efficient loads. Great! Good shooting! Me, I often can't do that and might hit the bird with the fringe of the pattern. I always liked that saying about the difference between 1-ounce and 1-1/4-ounce ….. "when the gun goes bang that extra 1/4-ounce has to go somewhere".

Many of the old boys such as Elmer Keith talked of heavy loads and long shots. Elmer used his Ithaca 3 1/2 inch ten bore to take geese to 80 yards. I've read most of their stuff including Askins who was Elmer's mentor. But I never shoot over 50 yards, never ever. And I never let the opinions of others become my opinions, even the likes of Askins and Keith who I truly enjoy reading. My comments are based solely on my personaL experience. I read what they had to say and then find out for myself. I have shot countless patterns and extensively shot all types of game for 55 years. My opinions are my own based on my actual experiences and testing. I am careful to preface my statements with "in my opinion". It's just that, my opinion. Others are free to read my posts and disagree. Thats what it's all about. Nobody would question the experience of Jack O'Connor or Elmer Keith. But both of those gentlemen disagreed on most everything. Jack O'Connor touted the .270 for elk and moose. Elmer Keith said anyone who hunted elk or moose with a .270 was a damn fool. My own experience taking moose with the .270 convinced me that Jack was right and Elmer was wrong. But my opinion is based on my experience, not the words of either gentlemen.

[Drew Hause]

I'm not buying the marketing, or gun writin' guy hyperbole.

Parker Bros. 1929 Catalog
"Magnum, Super, and variously named guns about which so much is now being written are not a new development in the gun makers' art. For the past twenty years Parker Brothers have made guns to handle heavy charges of powder and shot, giving good patterns at long range. Recent improvements in powder and by shell manufacturers have served to make the Parker Long Range gun even more effective, so that today the Parker built and bored to secure the full power of modern loads with which one may confidently expect to bring down game at distances a few years ago considered impossible, is up to date but not new. Parker Long Range guns are built to guard the user against abnormal recoil. The weight of the barrels is so distributed that the gun handles the heaviest loads with comfort. The purchaser of a Parker Long Range can rest assured that he will receive a gun, easy to handle, sufficiently heavy and properly bored to shoot the heaviest loads for the killing of wild fowl at extreme ranges."

Pattern testing by David Williamson with .042" choke 32" LRWF at a measured 80 yards using 3 inch Winchester (plastic) hull with 38.35 grains of Blue Dot, Winchester 209 primer, Winchester AASL wad, and 1 3/8 ounces of #5 nickel plated shot. The average number of pellets was 246 and measured weight 1.353 ounce.
Number of pellets in duck for 3 shots: 5,6 & 6. Pattern % in 30" circle: 5.3 = 13 pellets, 8.1 = 20 pellets & 8.5 = 21 pellets.



Any chance this "duck" is dead in the air?