CalendarCalendar   Photos  * FAQ
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:12 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:44 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
Drylok vs Blind Side

Here are some pattern numbers from Winchester’s Drylok Super-X Steel and Elite Blind Side Hex Steel loads to provide a comparison on their patterning performance.

All patterns were shot on the same day with a 12-gauge 3-inch Remington 870 Special Purpose with 28-inch barrel and factory flush Rem-chokes (pattern average of five, 30-inch post-shot scribed circle, yardage taped muzzle to target, in-shell pellet count average of five, and true choke constriction from bore gauge).

12 GA 3" WINCHESTER DRYLOK SUPER-X STEEL LOAD
1 1/4 oz #2 steel (162 pellets) @ 1,400 fps
40 YARDS
IC (.009" const.) / pattern 94 (58%)
Mod (.016" const.) / pattern 116 (72%)
Mod (.018" const.) / pattern 121 (75%)
F (.037" const.) / pattern 133 (82%)

12 GA 3" WINCHESTER ELITE BLIND SIDE STEEL LOAD
1 3/8 oz #2 Hex Steel (176 pellets) @ 1,400 fps
40 YARDS
IC (.009" const.) / pattern 85 (48%)
Mod (.016" const.) / pattern 98 (56%)
Mod (.018" const.) / pattern 104 (59%)
F (.037" const.) / pattern 109 (62%)

First things first, I patterned two different factory flush modified Rem-chokes, one has .016-inch constriction and the other has .018-inch constriction as measured with a bore gauge.

As you can see from the pattern numbers, both loads were able to exceed Roster/CONSEP minimum lethal mallard killin’ pattern density at the tested 40 yards with all chokes except the Blind Side Hex Steel load with the IC choke. And, the lighter 1 ¼-ounce load with fewer spherical steel pellets actually put more pellets in the down range patterns with all chokes tested. When comparing the pattern numbers and pattern percentages, it does look as though the Hex Steel cubic-shaped pellets tend to open patterns.

Good luck.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:20 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:45 am
Posts: 170
Location: louisiana
I just don't think this blindside is going to be as good as people thought.I still haven't picked up a box yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:42 am 
Field Grade

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:39 am
Posts: 46
Killed some ducks with Blindside, but it didn't pattern well in my shotgun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:03 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 4400
Location: Long Island, NY
Joe,

Good information, as always, thanks! I've been planning to test some Blind Side, just as a matter of satisfying my curiosity. What I'm planning on is setting up a series of targets from 15 to 50 yards at 5 yard intervals and firing a shot to measure the actual pattern bloom. Then do the same with a conventional load. My guess is that inside of 25 yards the Blind Side would be too tight to be effective. Anything that it hits will be unfit for furhter use. I also thing that beyond 40 yards, the Blind Side pattern will degrade quite quickly.

I'd also like to have a look at the side by side comparison of penetration at 35 to 50 yards. Typically, a standard #2 launched at comparable velocities will have no trouble with penetration on large ducks out to 50 yards and a bit beyond. I believe that just as the Blind Side's shape causes it to slow faster in the open air, the same effect will be observed in flesh.

Frank

_________________
Μολών λαβέ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:47 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
Frank -- Let us know how your patterning turns out.

As a side note, the BS cubic-shot pellets measured an average width between the flats of almost .130 inches, the diameter of a No. 4 shot, and the width from corner to corner averaged just shy of .160 inches, the diameter of a No. 1 pellet.

And, the BS pellets had an average weight of 3.39 grains/pellet while the #2 Drylok steel pellets averaged 3.47 grains /pellet.

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:54 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 262
Location: Kansas
Its pretty obvious that blind side is Winchester's attempt to answer federal's Blackcloud. I can't imagine that blind side would pattern well. I have used alot of black cloud and though its not my favorite shell, it definatly knocks the snot out of birds. I think blind side is a gimmick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:12 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
Here are some Black Cloud pattern numbers from the same gun/chokes listed above for you to compare.

12 GA 3" FEDERAL PREMIUM BLACK CLOUD FLIGHT-STOPPER STEEL LOAD
1 1/4 oz #2 steel (91 regular zinc plated steel pellets + 53 FS steel pellets = 144 pellets) @ 1,450 fps
40 YARDS
IC (.009" const.) / pattern 88 (61%)
Mod (.016" const.) / pattern 82 (57%)
Mod (.018" const.) / pattern 92 (64%)
F (S/L) (.037" const.) / pattern 113 (78%)

Now you can be the judge!

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:51 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:58 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Melbourne, Australia
dukhntr wrote:
Its pretty obvious that blind side is Winchester's attempt to answer federal's Blackcloud. I can't imagine that blind side would pattern well. I have used alot of black cloud and though its not my favorite shell, it definatly knocks the snot out of birds. I think blind side is a gimmick.



Just curious, would you expect to see any difference in patterning and/or killing performance if the BC load comprised only rounded shot or only flite-stopper pellets?

_________________
Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:51 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
Here are some more pattern numbers from the same gun/chokes as listed above for comparison.

12 GA 3" WINCHESTER XPERT HI-VELOCITY STEEL LOAD
1 1/4 oz #2 steel (146 pellets) @ 1,400 fps
40 YARDS
IC (.009" const.) / pattern 76 (52%)
Mod (.016" const.) / pattern 101 (69%)
Mod (.018" const.) / pattern 106 (73%)
F (.037" const.) / pattern 118 (81%)

Heck, the Xpert Steel load started out with 30 fewer in-shell pellets but still managed to registered higher pattern counts than the Blind Side Hex Steel load in all chokes except the IC. And, the Xpert loads registered higher pattern percentages than the Blind Side Hex Steel through all chokes tested.

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:14 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
I did shoot a few decoying mallards with the BS load. All shots were inside of 40 yards and I tried to not be anymore selective that I normally am. That said, I always trying to get a good reliable shot that I think I can make before attempting it, and then there are flaring-away shots that follow. I killed 10 mallards for the 13 shells I fired on two hunts.

I didn't notice anything more devistating about this ammo than normal spherical steel, If I felt good about the shot the duck died.

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:58 am 
Field Grade

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:48 am
Posts: 65
I'm certain that we can agree Winchester did the necessary research before introducing cubed shot, and I too believe it was in competition with Federal BC. Pretty much another gimmick aimed at marketing.
My hunting partner tries everything new to the market and bought a box of #2 BlindSide and found his results below his standard of kill shots,,, poor patterns.
Logically speaking.... I can't see how a cube shape could fly as true as a round shape, especially in the weather/wind conditions of most good waterfowl hunts.
I've found that in my shooting of geese the Dryloc Supreme BB patterns best out of my Inv + tubes and crushes the birds, so I've no intention of buying/trying Blind Side. I'm also somewhat concerned that the Supreme will possibly become extinct....(if it hasn't already been decided) and all due to marketing gimmicks....Hope not!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drylok vs Blind Side
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:59 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm
Posts: 932
Field results -- Well, I shot the last 20 BS shells (3", 1 3/8 oz, #2) I had left over from the pattern testing. I was shooting decoying ducks and I didn't pick my shots any more than I normally do.

I shot 12 mallards and 2 pintails, missed a few, shot a couple twice, and crippled a couple that the dog caught.

Most shots were 20-30 yards but a couple were out around 40 yards.

I didn't notice anything particularly devistating about them. I would have been able to shoot those same ducks with 2 3/4" 1 1/8 oz #4 and #2 steel loads as I normally do.

Good luck.




Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: analyst, arizonagunsmith, barrowsr, Bing [Bot], Bladeswitcher, budrock56, clayflingythingy, cookoff013, CTLS, CubaLibre, daspope, David McMillen, dcblvsh2, equine, Excellent959, fillet +release, FreeShot, fwood, gearguywb, GLS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, HazMat Ed, hopper810, Jimmy Muller, jorau1, llc, mactownbob, msheff, murfer, PKW-Indiana, rbs, RockyH, Sonder, Spirit, tjen, Virginian, Yahoo [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group     -  DMCA Notice