Thoughts on pellet counts for clays?

[Cold Spring]

Let me start out by saying I know some readers might comment how their 3/4-ounce loads in 12-gauge will absolutely crush clays at any range because of the short shot column, less pellet deformation on setback and maybe even some spooky dust.

But with that said, two friends are shooting together using tightly choked vintage 12-gauge guns on a sporting course with some close cupcakes, but other clays are tricky, far out and on edge. Also a few midis and chandelles. Tom is shooting 7/8 ounce loads with 7-1/2 shot (~296 pellets) and Harry is using 1-ounce loads of 8's (~410 pellets). Both loads at about the same 1150-1170 velocity.

Both are good shots and Tom does 91/100 and Harry comes in with 96/100. Both shooters had a few X's on the score sheet from lucky target "chips". Tom congrats Harry very sincerely but also funs him that the extra 114 pellets in his shells surely helped out on scoring that 96/100. Harry comes back to his friend Tom that in this scenario the difference in pellet count is irrelevant. Tom counters by asking Harry if Digweed or Faulds use anything but the heaviest permissible loads for serious sporting and why that is?

What do you think? Did Harry have “an edge” in this match?

[OH Osthaus]

no science behind this opinion

but - i would think the denser 8s load would result in more powdered/clean break targets but with choke and PATTERN SIZE being equal (doubt that), for scored targets there wouldn't be much advantage

[Dean Romig]

I’m going with irrelevant in this case Frank. Too many variables to make it a scientific experiment. Human error comes into play for the most part. Secondly, not every shot ‘cloud’ is identical. A hole in the pattern can actually occur even with identical loadings within each of the two you show as examples. There is a great deal of shooter skill involved - in fact it’s likely close to 98 or 99 percent but there’s that 1 or 2 percent of luck involved too.

Personally, if I were seriously shooting for score I would choose the denser pattern because I rely more on luck than my own shooting skill… or lack thereof.





.

[Andy]

I speak from a position of much less knowledge than others on here and since I tend to look at things "scientifically" if possible, I would agree this is purely hypothetical in nature but a great question. I would think there's an edge to the greater pellet count, but the only way would be to have Harry shoot 1,000 rounds with one load, then the other, with the same gun, and then compare. Of course if you're so inclined you can start calculating "power" and null hypothesis and all other sorts of things which give me hives. My best round at skeet was with a box of 1/2 ounce 20g shells loaded by a friend. He told me afterwards what I was shooting. Next round with 7/8 oz I crapped the bed. And that's how she goes.

[Dean Romig]

I took a screen shot of this post by FallCreekFan and Rocketman on the doublegun forum because it is somewhat pertinent to the subject question, this being relative to pattern efficiency.


.

[Mike of the Mountain]

I disagree with the pattern plate theory as a shot string on a moving target is a 3 dimensional shape whereas the pattern plate is two dimensional. If one is shooting at a standing turkey then that pattern plate will definitely show what your hit on a turkey head/neck will be. The only thing the pattern plate will truly tell you is POI if you have a consistent mount. Outside of checking for POI on a gun, I never pattern anything but a turkey gun for that static shot.

I'll bet if Harry shoots 7/8 oz loads he'll still post his 96/100.

[todd allen]

I would give the advantage to the number 8 shot. Pattern density/coverage = more odds of a kill.
As for the 3 dimensional shot cluster: The shot is going so much faster than the target that the whole column has passed through or by the target in an instant, making the pattern results quite two dimensional.
You could do the math on this.
Target is traveling at say, 35 - 50 MPH
Shot is traveling at, let's say 1000 FPS, or 682 MPH
I'm not going to go through the whole exercise, but the target, even at 50 MPH, has moved very little vs. the 682 MPH of the shot.

[Kevin McCormack]

Harry had the edge but Tom can compensate without going to the heavier 1 oz. load. All Tom needs to do is order out some Spooky Dust Minimal Load Ballistic Enhancer (SDMLBE) from Ballistics Products. It's a little pricey at $74.99 per 6 oz. can, but compared to the retail price of other reloading components lately (not to mention factory ammo when and where you can find it), it will give him the edge he needs.

[Quigley97]

IMHO you can mull over all the science. You can mull over all the number of pellets of one size to another. You can mull over all the velocity of the ammo compared to the speed of the targets, if you have some way of knowing the speed of the targets.
It all boils down to one thing and one thing only, WHEN YOU ARE ON YOU ARE ON.

[Mike of the Mountain]

Originally Posted by todd allen

I would give the advantage to the number 8 shot. Pattern density/coverage = more odds of a kill.
As for the 3 dimensional shot cluster: The shot is going so much faster than the target that the whole column has passed through or by the target in an instant, making the pattern results quite two dimensional.
You could do the math on this.
Target is traveling at say, 35 - 50 MPH
Shot is traveling at, let's say 1000 FPS, or 682 MPH
I'm not going to go through the whole exercise, but the target, even at 50 MPH, has moved very little vs. the 682 MPH of the shot.

Well, I will disagree on the 2-D regarding speed of the pattern. The tests were done years ago and there is such a difference between the length/spread of the shot column at one point in time that it does make a difference.

Just have to face it, the 91/100 shooter is not as good as the 96/100 shooter no matter whether the charge is 7/8 or 1 oz. I'd put my $$ on Harry.