Shotgun Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Fed Field & Target vs Win Universals vs Estate Super Sport

3 reading
Jump to Latest

  • Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
121 - 140 of 149 Posts
#121 ·
I have seen a chart showing hardness of all the promo loads Estate was the hardest .
? But Federal makes them I would think they would be similar to the top guns .

That said I posted a quick breakdown between Winchester and federal and the federal was
Harder to squeeze with needle nose plyers .

Again like Randy said they vary from lot to lot .

But after reading on this thread I will be looking for 7 1/2 instead of 8s

( if there's a difference LOL).
But todays world you take what you can get .
 
#122 ·
skar said:
I have seen a chart showing hardness of all the promo loads Estate was the hardest .
? But Federal makes them I would think they would be similar to the top guns .

That said I post a quick breakdown between Winchester and federal and the federal was
Harder to squeeze with needle nose plyers .

Again like Randy said they vary from lot to lot .
Click to expand...
I've seen the same "chart", but Federal uses 4% antimony lead in Top Guns, Field and Target's, and (presumably) Estate Super Sports. So I take the chart with a grain of salt.
 
#123 ·
Ssanders224 said:
I've seen the same "chart", but Federal uses 4% antimony lead in Top Guns, Field and Target's, and (presumably) Estate Super Sports. So I take the chart with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
No, Federal does not. Top Guns are erratic, but have been measured in the 1.74% range. Currently, the best they offer (Gold Metal Grand) is called a 5% antimonial hardness level.
 
#124 ·
sera said:
This is comical.

Any old shell out-hoots any old shooter.
Click to expand...
So has always claimed famous Indian Chief SittingWhileMakingBull, smoking his pipe on the cold rock based on zero evidence. "Shells no matter," said the Chief. Choke no-um matter, shot size no um matter, choke not matter, payload no-um matter. Then the Chief went back to his enjoyment of peyote, the small, spineless cactus with psychoactive alkaloids, particularly mescaline.

We know, based on the evidence of hundreds of thousands of patterns and high-speed video, that all of these things do indeed matter and matter significantly. The only question is how much it matters to "you."
 
Discussion starter · #126 ·
As you can see, I started another post since I completed the Super-Target dissection and patterning and I wanted to have the data from all three low-cost shells on one post so it would make comparing them easier.

Good luck!
 
#127 ·
RandyWakeman said:
Ssanders224 said:
I've seen the same "chart", but Federal uses 4% antimony lead in Top Guns, Field and Target's, and (presumably) Estate Super Sports. So I take the chart with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
No, Federal does not. Top Guns are erratic, but have been measured in the 1.74% range. Currently, the best they offer (Gold Metal Grand) is called a 5% antimonial hardness level.
Click to expand...
So you're implying Federal is flat out lying now? Pick up the phone and call them yourself.
I didn't pull my statement out of thin air, the information came directly from Federal.

I recently posed the question directly to a Federal employee. "Is the same shot used in Top Guns and Field and Target loads, and what alloy is used"?
The answer... "Yes, 4%".
 
#128 ·
Ssanders224 said:
RandyWakeman said:
Ssanders224 said:
I've seen the same "chart", but Federal uses 4% antimony lead in Top Guns, Field and Target's, and (presumably) Estate Super Sports. So I take the chart with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
No, Federal does not. Top Guns are erratic, but have been measured in the 1.74% range. Currently, the best they offer (Gold Metal Grand) is called a 5% antimonial hardness level.
Click to expand...
So you're implying Federal is flat out lying now? Pick up the phone and call them yourself.
I didn't pull my statement out of thin air, the information came directly from Federal.

I recently posed the question directly to a Federal employee. "Is the same shot used in Top Guns and Field and Target loads, and what alloy is used"?
The answer... "Yes, 4%".
Click to expand...
I think the federal is harder then the super target squeezing them with a pair of pliers. Ya you can tell the difference. That said the Winchester was more consistent size and rounder .
 
#129 ·
Ssanders224 said:
So you're implying Federal is flat out lying now? Pick up the phone and call them yourself.
I didn't pull my statement out of thin air, the information came directly from Federal.

I recently posed the question directly to a Federal employee. "Is the same shot used in Top Guns and Field and Target loads, and what alloy is used"?
The answer... "Yes, 4%".
Click to expand...
The anonymous employee is mistaken.
 
#131 ·
RandyWakeman said:
Ssanders224 said:
So you're implying Federal is flat out lying now? Pick up the phone and call them yourself.
I didn't pull my statement out of thin air, the information came directly from Federal.

I recently posed the question directly to a Federal employee. "Is the same shot used in Top Guns and Field and Target loads, and what alloy is used"?
The answer... "Yes, 4%".
Click to expand...
The anonymous employee is mistaken.
Click to expand...
Right. Of course they are.

There have been several instances of Federal reporting the Top Guns to contain 4% antimony lead. An example from 2018 as copied from a shared email in another forum:
"The content on all our TOP GUN loads are 4% antimony lead shot, no matter the shot size."

Even you yourself reported in the past that Top Guns were 3.5% per Federal.

My latest personal correspondence, when they reported the same information, was less than two weeks ago.

I know, I know…. You're going to site the old hardness spreadsheet compiled By the Trap forum some years ago. It's gospel or something. I get it. But multiple Federal employees, on multiple instances have reported that the Top Gun and F&T loads use 4% lead. Might they substitute different lead at times? Sure. Might their standard material not be a simple 4% antimony alloy? Possibly. But there's no reason to believe they have been significantly "mistaken" on multiple occasions, or purposefully purporting an incorrect nominal spec.
 
#132 ·
RandyWakeman said:
So has always claimed famous Indian Chief SittingWhileMakingBull, smoking his pipe on the cold rock based on zero evidence. "Shells no matter," said the Chief. Choke no-um matter, shot size no um matter, choke not matter, payload no-um matter. Then the Chief went back to his enjoyment of peyote, the small, spineless cactus with psychoactive alkaloids, particularly mescaline.
Click to expand...
That's pretty funny - but pretty risqué in this day and age of Indian hyper-sensitivity. I just noticed that they've removed the nice Indian gal from the label of my Land O Lakes butter. Maybe they shipped her off to the reservation. Or maybe they simply had to fire her because she was always showing up for work drunk.

Sad.
 
#133 ·
Ssanders224 said:
Right. Of course they are.
Click to expand...
If you don't know how to ask the right questions, you'll never get the right answer. If Joe Federal employee says 4%, did you ask how he knows that? Did you ask if he had ever measured shot hardness personally? Did you ask what the allowable range of shot hardness is?

What you carelessly refer to as an 'old hardness spreadsheet' is the most comprehensive independent lab-verified work on shot ever published. It is one of the perks if you own your own lab.

Image


To those with any significant shotshell reloading experience, the West Coast /. Lawrence shot testing vs. Eagle confirms what every one always knew.

Shortly after the lab work was completed, I sent the results to Federal. Federal confirmed that it was both quite plausible and highly likely. Federal did not even lightly attempt to dispute the results. I did the same with Olin and Remington. All three manufacturers commented that it was amazingly accurate and consistent with their own in-house testing of their shot and their competitors shot.

Two of the three commented that it is probably a good thing most people don't care about accurate lab data.
 
#134 ·
The world is full of many things given as fact.
The fact is, almost anyone does not know
what he is talking about. Most things people
know is just something someone made up
and pronounced as truth. So how do you
know what is true and what is not?

You don't know, you only believe.

Of these facts presented here, my belief is
that Randy has as good, or better chance, of
being right as I would care to accept.

In the end, it probably don't matter.
 
#135 ·
RandyWakeman said:
Ssanders224 said:
Right. Of course they are.
Click to expand...
If you don't know how to ask the right questions, you'll never get the right answer.
Click to expand...
Im aware of that spread sheet, where it came from, and what it says.

You think they just pull that 4% figure out of thin air? It's either being spec'd that way, was spec'd that way at some point, communicated internally that way, etc. Multiple people didn't just stick their finger in the air and decide "hmm, I'll just say 4% this time".

I didn't say anything about BHN, just that Federal says they use the same 4% Sb shot in both products… and that most likely means they actually are using lead spec'd at 4% Sb. And unless it's absolute junk material (it isn't) they most likely have mill test reports from each pour that state that it is actually 4%. They most likely do not even include BHN in their spec. Could the lead they put in shells fluctuate at times based on what they have available? Sure. I've already addressed that. They care FAR less about the makeup of shot than they do about the lead in an HST.

Dealing with lead spec and it's properties as it relates to ammunition manufacturing is part of my daily job. So yes. I know what questions to ask, and I know who to ask. I communicate with major supplier of lead to this industry regularly. I know what spec leads many manufacturers actually purchase. I'm not just mindlessly regurgitating things I've heard.
 
#136 ·
I think it's tough to believe federal would put such a high antimony content in their budget shell and not even market it as such.

Why bother? Generosity? Are we to believe it doesn't pay to use cheaper shot in the Walmart stuff? I just can't see how that could be.
 
#140 ·
RandyWakeman said:
Ssanders224 said:
Im aware of that spread sheet, where it came from, and what it says.
Click to expand...
Unless you are somehow struggling to discredit or cast aspersions on that lab-generated data, professional data that Federal, Olin, and Remington all found exemplary, there is nothing remaining to talk about.
Click to expand...
I'M not struggling at anything... I'm telling you that Federal and their lead suppliers are the ones you're arguing with. They do not agree with you.

Currently,
Win and Rem buy 2%Sb/1.5%As and 6%Sb/1.5%As lead for shot production.
Feds buys lead spec'd 3.5%Sb/1.5%As (and other higher Sb material) and has for some time.

Those are facts, literally from the mouth of the supplier. The supplier provides what is spec'd, confirmed by mill reports. They are one of the foremost suppliers of lead to this industry and have been for a long time. They provide extremely accurate material.

You're spreadsheet (as far as Sb content) is not completely accurate.
 
121 - 140 of 149 Posts
About this Discussion
148 Replies
34 Participants
Last post:
drawdc
Shotgun Forum
posts
4.5M
members
165K
Since
2000
A forum community dedicated to Shotgun owners and enthusiasts including the Remington, Beretta, and Mossberg shotguns brands. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Shotgun Discussions Shotshell Reloading Sporting Clays Tactical/HD Shotguns Shotgun Opinions