One more point. No responsible defender can even fire a 00 buckshot load that patterns say 20" @ XYZ yards at a BG beyond XYZ yards, unless he knows that no other person is beyond his BG target. While a responsible defender may be willing to destroy replaceable objects, he should never even point the muzzle at, much less pull the trigger, when an innocent person is beyond (or even near) a BG target at XYZ range. He is responsible for each pellet that he fires. Federal's goal with FC is to make XYZ a bigger number. Why risk violating two universal firearm safety rules by assuming a close quarters attack and using obsolete short range 00 buckshot for HD?
It would be very interesting to know the specifics of Mr. Billing's licencing of FC to ATK and Hornady. If the present agreements restrict the lease of the patent to ATK and Hornady, well, too bad for Remington and Winchester, etc. However, it would be foolish if Remington and Winchester, etc., are deliberately not using this wad technology and if it had been offered to them.
A case in point is the Mossberg aluminum receiver.
In 1901 John Moses Browning received U.S. Patent 689,283 for his Browning Auto-5 shotgun, in which he described steel-to-steel, bolt-to-barrel extension lock-up. "As was the custom of the time, Browning's earlier designs had been licensed exclusively to Winchester (and other manufacturers) for a single fee payment. With this new product, Browning introduced in his negotiations a continuous royalty fee based upon unit sales, rather than a single front-end fee payment." Mr. Browning's offer was foolishly rejected by both Winchester Repeating Arms Company and by Remington Arms, but not by the more respectful F. N. Herstal of Belgium. By not licensing the Browning patent, Winchester and Remington had to continue making steel receivers mandated by their bolt-to-receiver lock-up. Mr. Browning's patents eventually expired, but the big manufacturers initially chose to not re-tool and risk upsetting customers who were long accustomed to the older locking designs. Remington finally made the switch in 1951 with the 870. Winchester continued with the Model 12 until it was almost too late competitively, introducing the 1200 in 1964.
Mossberg knew that all of the firing force is handled by a steel-to-steel, bolt-to-barrel extension lock-up, and that an aluminum receiver would only have to transmit recoil. Mossberg has saved production costs since 1961 with their aluminum receivers. Even though Remington also used the bolt-to-barrel extension lock-up ten years earlier with the 870, they continued with the unnecessary steel receivers because of customer expectations. This has given Mossberg a competitive edge in production costs over Remington for over 50 years.
I think that Remington and Winchester could be making the same financial mistake these days by not licensing Mr. Billing's technology as they did over a century ago when they rejected Mr. Browning's offer. These two Utah inventors have made their mark on firearms and ammunition history.
