its one or t`other. not both.

its not worth it. even experimenting ot thinking about it will waste valuable milliseconds.

 

recipe for disaster......

 

Say what?

Surely you're not serious?

BP

 

It appears that several people are opposed to the idea, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why.

 

BP,

There are a few folks on here that think mixing pellet material types, is a great idea.

Some have even had loads tested.

I do not agree with them, but they are serious.

 

Ulysses,

The issue isn't internal ballistics, you can certainly develop a safe load, the issue is external ballistics.

You are creating a longer shot string, in effect two different shot swarms. The farther away the target the less effective the mixed pellet load will be.

I don't know about you but the further away a target is the more trouble I have breaking it, I don't need a self-inflicted ammo problem.

 

A short time ago, I was thinking of switching over to steel trap loads because the steel shot prices were much lower. Even with the higher wad prices, it looked attractive. But lately the steel prices have crept up to match lead shot, so the advantage has disappeared entirely. I'm assuming that any future lead shot price increases will be matched by steel, but who knows. It's not really the price of raw lead that has gone up---it's been pretty stable for a while, and it will probably go down in the near term.
A combo load would probably be easy enough to do technically, but the financial incentive isn't there right now.

 

Ulysses,

The issue isn't internal ballistics, you can certainly develop a safe load, the issue is external ballistics.

You are creating a longer shot string, in effect two different shot swarms. The farther away the target the less effective the mixed pellet load will be.

I don't know about you but the further away a target is the more trouble I have breaking it, I don't need a self-inflicted ammo problem.

Thanks for addressing the question. However, I'm not sure your answer is really correct. Here is a quote from a website that is comparing steel shot characteristics vs lead shot characteristics. With regard to shot string, steel shot has a shorter shot string than a comparable lead shot string. Besides, I think that shot string is VASTLY overrated as having any significant effect on hitting a target.

(C) Shot String:
Lead shot, which is easily deformed upon firing, develops a relatively long, large-diameter shot string. Steel shot however because it is three times harder than lead, stays round, and develops a shot string that is 50-60% shorter and 60-70% narrower than lead.

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.steelvslead.html

So, I wouldn't really care if a few of the steel pellets got there a few milliseconds before (or after) the lead shot got there. Most shots at clay targets are under 40 yards, so it's really an insignificant point anyway, IMO.

 

A few milliseconds is enough to create misses. How far do you think a target moves in a few milliseconds? And yes steel has a shorter shot string, but the steel shot will be trailing the lead shot. Even IF you center it with the lead pellets, the steel pellets have no chance of hitting the target on a quartering or crossing shot.

I love you guys that already have your mind made up......it seems you ask these questions looking for an argument........

 

I agree with Dogchaser 100%. He explained my feelings exactly! Uly, if you do this please post results and somehow show us the shot string. From a purely scientific perspective I see nothing but problems with the two vastly different metals.

BP

 

With regard to shot string, steel shot has a shorter shot string than a comparable lead shot string. Besides, I think that shot string is VASTLY overrated as having any significant effect on hitting a target.

I would have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that shot string is vastly overrated. Here is an example from Bob Brister's book.

" How much difference can a premium load make? Well, in one of my tests I fired high-velocity No. 7 1/2 hunting loads supposedly as good as money can buy from three full-choked test barrels, all excellent at handling No. 7 1/2 shot. The stationary pattern average was around 60 percent, or about modified-choke performance. On the moving target the loads were worse; in several cases they string shot sufficiently at 40 yards that the most dense area of some patterns was a patchy 45 percent. In other words, the hunter who fired that load at a pheasant under the impression he was using a full choke was, on a crossing bird at 40 yards, actually getting closer to improved-cylinder performance."

He then went on to use the same shells and guns but replace the #7 1/2 shot in the shells with #7 1/2 shot from trap loads. The result was the stationary pattern was 80 percent and 70-75 percent for the moving target.

Now on the subject of mixing lead and steel I was going to object on the grounds that it was dangerous. Apparently I was wrong so I can see no reason not to at least try.

 

Besides all the other already mentioned issues, I think you would have problems dispensing it correctly. Shake you power hopper a little and all the lighter (and bigger) steel shot will end up on the top - the smaller heavier lead would be at the bottom. How would you be able to keep it mixed evenly?

 

Besides, I think that shot string is VASTLY overrated as having any significant effect on hitting a target.

You would be incorrect in that line of thinking

 

A few milliseconds is enough to create misses. How far do you think a target moves in a few milliseconds? And yes steel has a shorter shot string, but the steel shot will be trailing the lead shot. Even IF you center it with the lead pellets, the steel pellets have no chance of hitting the target on a quartering or crossing shot.

I love you guys that already have your mind made up......it seems you ask these questions looking for an argument........

I'm not looking for an argument. I'm looking for some FACTS. So far, everyone who has been opposed to the idea has been long on opinions, but woefully short on facts, at least as far as quantifying any of the facts. It's ridiculous to say that "if you center a target with the lead pellets, the steel pellets have no chance of hitting the target on a quartering or crossing shot."

Let's look at a few FACTS instead of blowing so much smoke. I found some useful information at the following site. http://www.fourten.org.uk/steel4.pdf

It's a rather long article, but the part that interested me was about 2/3 way down the page where they compared the downrange velocity of lead pellets (UK#9) and steel pellets (#7.5) which weigh the same and leave the muzzle at the same velocity. Personally I wouldn't choose this small a pellet for anything but skeet type targets (25 yards or less), but it's informative to compare and do some figuring.

If you'll look at the chart, you'll see that both pellets start out at 1300 fps. By 20 yards, the lead pellet has slowed down to 803 fps and the steel pellet has slowed to 725 fps. At 40 yards (which would be way too long a shot for this size pellets), the lead pellet has slowed down to 563 fps and the steel pellet slowed to 474 fps. I'm not going to attempt to figure out the EXACT difference in time of flight of each pellet, but I can see from the numbers that the AVERAGE velocity difference over the 40 yards is in the neighborhood of 10% to 12%. For shorter distances, the average velocity difference would be even less.

So now let's apply this info to a somewhat typical target presentation. Let's say we have a 30 yard crosser that would require exactly 6 feet of lead (forward allowance) if shooting it with the above 1300 fps lead pellets. Let's further assume that we place our shot perfectly so that the lead pellets perfectly center the target.

OK, now comes the question of where the steel pellets are in relation to the lead pellets and how much longer it will take for them to get there and how far will the target move while waiting for the steel pellets to arrive. (Whew! Long sentence. ). Well, we know that the steel pellets are averaging about 10-12% slower on a 40 yard shot, so let's say that they are about 9% slower on a 30 yard shot. So how far will that target move in the extra 9% of time that it takes the steel pellets to arrive?

Looks to me like the answer would be about 9% times 6 feet which equals a whopping 6.5 inches. :shock: :shock: So does anyone here want to tell me that they can consistently judge and place their shots at exactly 6 feet in front of a 30 yard crosser and not misjudge it by 6.5" ????? Keep in mind that we will have about a 30" pattern and I doubt that there are very many shooters who can consistently place the center of their pattern within 6.5" of exactly where they want it on a 30 yard crosser.

OK, there's my facts on the velocity issue. Now where are YOUR facts?

 

Besides all the other already mentioned issues, I think you would have problems dispensing it correctly. Shake you power hopper a little and all the lighter (and bigger) steel shot will end up on the top - the smaller heavier lead would be at the bottom. How would you be able to keep it mixed evenly?

Good question and I've already thought of that and have an answer, but I'd rather deal with the external ballistics issue first. Get back to me a little later, OK?

 

Besides, I think that shot string is VASTLY overrated as having any significant effect on hitting a target.

You would be incorrect in that line of thinking

And you have WHAT to back up your opinion?

 

With regard to shot string, steel shot has a shorter shot string than a comparable lead shot string. Besides, I think that shot string is VASTLY overrated as having any significant effect on hitting a target.

He then went on to use the same shells and guns but replace the #7 1/2 shot in the shells with #7 1/2 shot from trap loads. The result was the stationary pattern was 80 percent and 70-75 percent for the moving target.

Right there is the answer to the important part of your topic about Brister. When good target loads are used, there is little difference in patterns between moving and stationary.

 

Follow your dream, Ulysses. Give it a try and let us know how it works! I doubt anything bad will happen if you get a good multi-metal wad like this: http://www.ballisticproducts.com/PT1251 ... 222PT1251/ and keep it reasonable (17 grains of e3 in a Fiocchi hull, for example.)

 

Well the first thing I notice is that you believe in 30 " effective patterns.......it's kinda like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus......they don't exist and neither does a 30" effective pattern. Not even a 1 1/8 oz. of #9 lead pellets can fill out a 30" circle and place 3 pellets on an on-edge target. Shot swarms do not develop that way, at least not on earth. On a good day you MIGHT get a 23" effective pattern with a standard target load of 1 or 1 1/8 oz. of lead.

You have completely forgotten that the steel pellets are behind the lead pellets in the shot swarm. If you centered the target with the lead pellets, and then the target moves 6 1/2" how many steel pellets do you think will hit the target?

How about zero?

You keep over looking stuff, make-up your own rules, and tell us you aren't looking for an argument.

As FullTang says follow your dreams and let us know how it works for you.

 

Well the first thing I notice is that you believe in 30 " effective patterns.......it's kinda like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus......they don't exist and neither does a 30" effective pattern. Not even a 1 1/8 oz. of #9 lead pellets can fill out a 30" circle and place 3 pellets on an on-edge target. Shot swarms do not develop that way, at least not on earth. On a good day you MIGHT get a 23" effective pattern with a standard target load of 1 or 1 1/8 oz. of lead.

I guess that if you can't defend your claims about shot strings, you can always change the subject to something else........ like effective pattern size. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You have completely forgotten that the steel pellets are behind the lead pellets in the shot swarm. If you centered the target with the lead pellets, and then the target moves 6 1/2" how many steel pellets do you think will hit the target?

I haven't forgotten anything. It's too bad you can't read and comprehend what I wrote above.


How about zero?

Once again, you have absolutely ZERO facts to back up your allegation. Do you think that all 30 yard crossers that are broken are done so by the exact center of the pattern? A lot of 30 yard crossers are missed by several feet by the average shooter. A miss of 6.5" is not going to make much difference in a large majority of the cases.

You keep over looking stuff, make-up your own rules, and tell us you aren't looking for an argument.

As FullTang says follow your dreams and let us know how it works for you.

So I guess your short answer is that you really HAVEN'T tried anything like this before and don't really have anything useful to contribute. Thought so. :roll:

 

Uly,

Make up some of these loads and do the testing and get back to us with the FACTS. So far it's nothing but conjecture on your part. It really does look like you are picking for a spat here.

Load the shells, do the pressure testing, the patterning, and the shot string test and get back to us with results. This sounds a lot like a project I had in college. One guy did the probability of putting a mini Wankel rotary engine in a sewing machine.

BP

 

BP,

Did he ever finish the wankel powered sewing machine.

I have a buddy that has a blender powered by a weed wacker motor......not a rotary, just a plain, boring piston engine. He has made some great concoctions with it though :wink: :wink:

 

Uly,

Make up some of these loads and do the testing and get back to us with the FACTS. So far it's nothing but conjecture on your part. It really does look like you are picking for a spat here.

Load the shells, do the pressure testing, the patterning, and the shot string test and get back to us with results. This sounds a lot like a project I had in college. One guy did the probability of putting a mini Wankel rotary engine in a sewing machine.

BP

I don't have the equipment to do pressure testing or to take accurate measurements of shot string length. What I was looking for in starting this discussion was input on the idea of mixing steel and lead shot in the same load. There might be some economic reasons for wanting to do this.

I was hoping that people would apply FACTS about things we do know and/or can calculate such as velocity differences of the lead and steel shot, possible wads to use, problems likely to be encountered in the reloading process, downrange energy of steel versus lead shot, how the pattern might be affected by using the two different kind and sizes of shot, and that sort of thing.

What I actually got, for the most part, was simple blanket statements to the effect that it won't work, yet no one has yet been able to back up their statements as to WHY they think it won't work......... especially Dogchaser. He has made statements that are just flat out WRONG. Should I just accept it and say nothing or should I correct him with mathematical facts and logic? I chose to do the latter. It's unfortunate that you think my attempts to be factually correct are attempts to start a "spat".

 

Besides all the other already mentioned issues, I think you would have problems dispensing it correctly. Shake you power hopper a little and all the lighter (and bigger) steel shot will end up on the top - the smaller heavier lead would be at the bottom. How would you be able to keep it mixed evenly?

Good question. Now I'll try to answer what I had in mind. My thought is to put a vertical divider in my shot tube. Put the lead shot on one side of the divider and the steel shot on the other side. Make a small opening near the bottom to allow both the different type shots to mix just prior to going into the charge bar.

This divider would keep the different shot types from stratifying horizontally because they wouldn't actually be mixed together until just before being loaded into a shell.

Don't know if this would work. Would likely require some fine tuning of the opening size, opening height, etc of the hole at the bottom of the divider. If you started out with both types of shot filled to the same level in the tube, then you could observe which, if either, is being loaded faster into the shells by observing which one is dropping fastest in the shot tube.

 

Uly,

If I read your first post correctly you asked for thoughts and if anyone had done this already?

I though what you got were thoughts, we pretty much said we thought it wasn't an idea that had merit. Some more politely than others, but thoughts just the same.

I'd say most of us on this thread do not share your passion for an idea like this. It apears as if you have done a bit of fact finding yourself and if someone makes a statement contrary to what you believe the facts to be you accuse them of one thing or other insisting you need facts! You didn't ask for facts, you asked for thoughts, remember?

Now I'll admit it's been a while since my college days and granted I've not used everything I learned in my physics, chemistry, math and metalurgy classes back then in my day to day professional life but I do have a vauge reccolection of sectional density, specific gravity, Newton's laws and generaly how that all fits together, or in many cases doesn't fit together. I also recall reading, or rather studying, research articles on steel shot vs lead and other non-tox shot relative to speed, trajectory, and retained energy etc. as well as duplex and triplex loads. Commercial failuers they were for various reasons. I also have more than a bit of experience doing rifle projectile testing looking at the difference in performance of different weights of projectiles at different velocities, such as a 40 gr .224 bullet at 4,000 fps vs a 68 gr bullet at 2800 fps. Guess which one gets to 100 yd first, 200 yd, 300 yd, 500 yd. Hmmmm? There is a point where those time/speed grafs intersect but then the 40 gr falls to the ground while the 68 continues on to the target. Takes the same amount of time, just goes farther before it happens. I see similar things happening with combinations of steel and lead shot. It's not all about weight either, size BC, and air restriction will play heavily into this too. Not that we are talking 300 or 500 yds here, but is will be relative and proportional.

I think there are a whole lot of things that will enter into a project like this, probably several that won't even be noticable untill the actual research takes place. Is it worth the effort?

Rather than try to recall all the exact formulas and doing the math or rather your research, my first educated/gut thought is it won't work well, it's not worth the effort. Kind of what everyone else thought too, but you refuse to hear, just sugesting everyone is poo-pooing the idea off hand without providing facts! There aren't any specific facts, nobody has had the desire to do this for one reason or the other, in my case because from my education and experience my thought is, it won't work.

Thoughts again, just what you requested?

If I recall corrrectly someone did offer a reccommendation of a wad you might want to try? That might fit the, has anyone tried this, section of your post?

We all know old dogchaser can be a bit caustic and rude now and then. He's a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. I think he offered several good reasons why this shot mixing idea is not a good idea. Again, you two are butting heads. You demand facts, there aren't any yet. You only asked for thoughts, remember? Pretty much unanamous I'd say. Nobody other than you thinks this is a good workable idea.

Go ahead, do it, prove us all wrong with your facts but don't gripe at us for not providing you with facts when all you asked for was thoughts.

This whole thread reminds me of a guy I once worked with. He'd ask you if you knew the best way to build a dog house and then procede to lecture you on the best way to build a dog house. I'm not making this up, this was just one of his topics.

Kind of like you are asking us what time it is and now seem to be getting peeved because nobody will tell you how to build a clock!

Sorry, Uly, this is how it looks to me. I still don't "think" it's a good idea! No I haven't tried it and upon further thought likely won't.

BP