Study on 3 1/2" duck loads

[onyoside]

Just throwing this out there, I have shot 3.5in for years and have no problems with it, but I switched this year. I bought a patternmaster and 3in shells vs modified w 3.5in shells. I can say the 3 in out performs my 3.5in shels hands down in the duck hole havent paterned on paper. I am afirm beliver on patternmaster, not to say I wont go to 3.5in shells at a later date, but it will be thru my pm choke if I do.

[GordonGekko]

I may have come off the wrong way, 3" shells are good enough for any waterfowling out there...I just like a little extra speed and shot for shooting geese (I shot big shot too, BB's in fact)....

But, I would be really surprised if the shot strings are significantly different, or if the length of a steel shot string has any real world significance....

[Blackwater]

[quote="GordonGekko"]people have known about shot string for quite a while...and honestly, i hate to put it this way, but don't put too much stock in it.... theory or not, here is the real world breakdown, say the shot string is 5 feet long (just for arguments sake), and the shot is moving at 1200 feet per second. That means that the shot at the back of the string would get to the target .00416 seconds after the first pellet arrived. So the real question becomes how far will the target move during that time.

if a target is moving 60 miles per hour (on a perpindicular line to the shot) (way faster than most ducks), it will cover 88 feet per second. In .00426 seconds it will move .36608 feet, or 4.4 inches...so the last pellet will hit roughly 4.4 inches behind the first...so if the first shot hits the bill the last pellet should hit the base of the neck, or somewhere in that vacinity, right? if you lenghten the shot string to 8 feet long, the last shot will impact 7 inches behind the first, meaning most of the pellets still arrive in the kill zone....

now in the real world...most ducks probably move at around 30 to 40 mph (wide open), give or take so you can reduce the difference by 33-50%, so you end up with the last shot trailing the first by 2.2 inches, or 3.5 inches respectively, on a duck moving 30 mph perpindicular to the shot string.... In the real world, on ducks and geese this isn't an issue...if more shot leaves the barrel more shot will end up on the target....//[quote]



Damn-it, they said no math was needed to duck hunt, now i am screwed, dang public schools.....

[Wildfowler]

I like to shoot 3 & 1/2 steel for the added velocity. I opt for the 1 and 3/8 ounce load cranked up to 1550 fps. 1 and 3/8 ounce has been the standard 3 inch steel load forever. The difference being that the 3 & 1/2 load is about 250 FPS faster than most of the 3 inch loads.

I personally think it makes a big difference. I'm guessing that there is no difference in shot sting between the two loads I have referenced since the payload is the same. Don't know for sure, and am not sure I should even be concerned about it.

[blk-h2o]

when I shoot factory loads i shoot 3 1-2 #2 that travel bout 1500 feet per second , when I shoot my reloads I shoot a 3 1-2 #2 with a diff power charge and shot load and I can bump speeds @ 1900 fps (Belive It), As far as a 3 1-2 shell shooting a 3" wadding MAYBE some do but the ones I've seen have a longer wadding and I know for a fact that 3.5 wads are sold. I never got to hunt with lead but inside 40 yards lead would be hard pressed to out perform todays faster steel loads. In my oppion its never the shell its the shooter, I choose the bigger shell so that Ill have a if not larger at least more dense pattern so if im a little in front or a little behind i still have a good chance at making a clean kill.

talk em in to dropin by then insist they stay for dinner.

[duramax]

I didn't say they use the same wads. I said the 3 1/2" wads were different from the 3".

[teul2]

I never got to hunt with lead but inside 40 yards lead would be hard pressed to out perform todays faster steel loads.

Oh my god, are you serious?
Speed has nothing to do with the performance diffrences between lead and steel.
I grew up shooting lead. It is better hands down, 24/7, and twice on sunday.
And besides, this thread has nothing to do with lead vs. steel.
It is 2.75" vs. 3" vs 3.5".

[duramax]

I never got to hunt with lead but inside 40 yards lead would be hard pressed to out perform todays faster steel loads.

Oh my god, are you serious?
Speed has nothing to do with the performance diffrences between lead and steel.
I grew up shooting lead. It is better hands down, 24/7, and twice on sunday.
And besides, this thread has nothing to do with lead vs. steel.
It is 2.75" vs. 3" vs 3.5".

Yeah I didn't catch that line. That could be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. When I lived in Canada, we could shoot lead until '94 I think. I rarely used anything other than 2 3/4 20ga and waxed ducks to 50 yards all day long! Usually when I used a 12ga it was for geese. Rarely would we get cripples, and if we did, lead would swat them dead on the first shot on the water. The only thing you can compare lead to is hevi-shot or bismuth, except that lead was even cheaper than crappy steel loads today! But that is a completely different subject.

[Buckwabit]

Does 2.75 = 2 3/4.

[goosebruce]

I think the more you over analze it, the more you got on yur mind and the more you will miss.

That math was impressive, but flawed. The shot charge isnt moving 1200 fps when it hits the bird... the shot charge starts to slow immedately from the muzzle. Now Im not smart nuff to go back and do the math, but Im sure the orignal poster is, so lets see the lenght of bird travel with fps the shot charge would be moving at a given distance. But his point was, and I agree with, even though a shot string may be long, they are still hitting pretty damn close to each other.

Shot string lenght is also effected by the amount of choke & the size of the pellet. The tighter you choke something, the more funnelling effect you have, the longer the string will be leaving, ergo the longer it will be in the air. Thats why wadstrippers like the patternmaster have shorter strings, they dont restrict the shot. And in my seat of the pants observations, patternmasters rock. Also with bigger pellets, you have less of them, so shot string lenght becomes more of a cocearn than if you had more pellets.

3.5 shells jam up a lot more than 3 inch shells, at least in every 3.5 inch gun Ive ever been around excpet for 2 of my friends, that happened to luck out and get 3.5 870s that actually seem to work right. That is the main reason I quit shooting them (cept for skybusting snows) is they wont cycle thru the damn guns. When i noticed less recoil effects and less headaches from a good hunt, I decided to stay quit shooting them.

3.5 shells make my teef hurt. travis

[Buckwabit]

I agree with Everything exept the jamming part. I have a BPS and it has never jammed with 3.5's. And I have run through quite a few cases for Experience.

You are right though, they kick the crap out of you.

[GordonGekko]

sorry about the math, I don't deal with numbers much...at the time i didn't have any numbers handy, so i used arbitrary numbers...the only numbers i've been able to come up with are that Steel no. 2's fired at 1500 fps, are moving at 737 fps at 40 yards....an 8 foot shot string the last pellet will get there .0108 seconds after the first or 11.4 inches behind the first (still shorter than any mallard i've ever shot), when compared with a 30" pattern at 40 yards, even this extreme doesn't amount to much.... Shotguns aren't precision instruments, they're made to be pointed....

now remember this if for a target moving 60 MPH, if you slow it down to 30 you get 5.7 inches or less which is probably a good ball park number....

my original point...don't worry about it...shot string does not amount to much....

[tombstone]

Dang Gordon, I think they have a job opening on mythbusters.

and you were able to pass that info along in such a way that a dummy like myself could understand part of it.

[stitch]

Briley did extensive testing of 3 1/2" loads on pass shooting and found that the shot stream is too long to be more effective than 3" when shooting ducks. They used several testing methods including a "swinging pendulum" style test to see how long it takes for the tail end of the pattern to reach the target and found that it is so long that it makes no sense to shoot them. They did recognize that shooting larger birds, such as geese, there was a potential for it being somewhat effective. This study has the biggest impact on those who use steel, seeing as those who shoot Hevi-shot or Bismuth usually use 2 3/4 or 3".
This does not hold true when it comes to shooting stationary birds (ie turkeys).
I was astounded after seeing this and wouldn't have believed it without seeing all the diagrams and tests.
I assure you that next season I will only be buying 3" shells for duck hunting. The few boxes of 3 1/2" shells I have left over will be saved for sneaking up on geese.
I will try and find an internet link to this study.

The way I see it, assuming the statement in bold is true.....if i'm shooting a 3-1/2" shell and you are shooting 3" shells....assume we both lead the same duck "slightly too much". Your 3" shells will miss the duck where the tail end of my 3-1/2" would hit the duck. I would love to see the study methods....I don't care what you say, all things being equal, more is better.

[GulfCoast]

Someone PLEASE send me this "study"!