Non-Toxic Shot Load Comparison Calculator

[BTStewart]

Hello,

This is my first post, although I've been using Hunt-Washington as a resource for several months now. As I am fairly new to hunting (this is my third year), it has been a great resource for me. Anyway, I am looking at taking up duck hunting this year, and like any good Aerospace Engineer, I went ahead and wrote a computer program to help me compare the performance of various shot types and sizes to each other. I realized this might be helpful for others as well, so I decided to share it. You can find more information and download a copy of the program here (hosted on my inactive flyfishing blog):

http://westslopemagazine.com/shotgun-load-comparison-calculator-program/

This program is totally free to use and distribute - like I said, I wrote it for myself and figured I'd share it in case others found it helpful. I'd welcome any feedback anyone has about the program; I'm always looking for ways to make it better.

Best,

Tom

[h2ofowlr]

Tom,

Is your calculations based off of smooth, spherical round shot?  If so, would this comparision data still hold true on shot that has a belt around it like Black Cloud or square shot like blind side or shot that looks like snowmen similar to Hevi-Metal.  How do these factors change the calculations.

You also have advanced wad design on some, different pressure associated with powder types and burn rates, etc.

Just a few questions that you may have answers to.

Thanks

[CoryTDF]

Great first post! Also, great job on the magazine. It looks good.

[BTStewart]

h20fowler - the calculation methodology I am using is based on research done by the air force in the 1950's, and does indeed assume smooth, spherical shot. In general, the spot checking I have done against actual data shows agreement to my program (for lead and steel only, to be fair) within 5% or so. I would guess my program's results are still valid for a "belted sphere" like Black Cloud. As far as "snowman" shot or square shot goes; it's harder to say. The results are still going to be in the right ballpark, but certainly less accurate than for actual spherical shot (especially for the cube shot).

At this point I am not taking any of the internal ballistic of the shotgun (powder pressures, etc) into account, or any sort of extended range wad effects, either. The good news is that specialized wad effects would increase rather than decrease downrange energy, so if anything you could expect performance a bit better than that predicted by my program, not worse. My program is really only intended to provide some numbers for a general comparison between shot types (what size and speed of steel do you need to approximate the energy of 1200 fps #6 lead at 40 yards?), rather than a precise analysis of any particular shot. As you know, the manufacturer's or reloading ballistic table is still the gold standard for that.

As an aside, do you know of any good technical resources that might help me capture some of the effects of advanced wad design? I would be interested to add that as an option if the information is readily available.

CoryTDF - thank you for the encouragement!

-Tom

[AWS]

I have know idea why people are still comparing lead to steel, lead is obsolete and hasn't been used for ducks for going well on thirty years.  Go out and pattern your steel loads learn how to shoot it forget lead ever existed.  There are a bunch more difference between than just speed and energy.

[BTStewart]

AWS - For me at least, the comparison to lead is helpful because I have been hunting upland for a couple of years and lead is what I am used to. My program can also be used to compare bismuth, steel, and 13 g/cc Tungsten loads to each other - it's really just a tool to help beginners like me learn the basic differences in performance between different types of non-toxic shot, with lead included as a reference point. I am not trying to make the claim that pellet energy is the only important metric, but it is a useful point of reference for beginners like me.

[fowl smacker]

I have know idea why people are still comparing lead to steel, lead is obsolete and hasn't been used for ducks for going well on thirty years.  Go out and pattern your steel loads learn how to shoot it forget lead ever existed.  There are a bunch more difference between than just speed and energy.

Why bash the guy for actually trying to give something to the site?  That's what these forums are for.  Hunters helping hunters.  I found it very interesting and I've hunted waterfowl/uupland for some 21 yrs now.  If you see no need for this, just move on and don't respond.

[AWS]

Iwasnt bashing the the guy just the info.  Bringing in lead to a discussion on a waterfowl thread just doesn't make any sense.  A comparison spread sheetof steel, tungsten, bismuth, and alternate soft nontoxics makes sense with steel as the baseline, lead is a non issue for waterfowl.  If your making the transition from upland to waterfowl, forget everything you know about lead and learn about the ammo you are going to use.  If your really serious about learning about waterfowl loads a chronograph and pattern board will give you way more info than spread sheet comparing to lead.  Loading a batch of steel target loads to match the speed of your hunting  loads and spending time on a sporting clays or skeet field will really improve your ability to harvest waterfowl, the trap range is worthless for a waterfowl hunter as you get very few shot rising and going away from you unless most of your hunting is jump shooting.

[JJD]

Iwasnt bashing the the guy just the info.  Bringing in lead to a discussion on a waterfowl thread just doesn't make any sense.  A comparison spread sheetof steel, tungsten, bismuth, and alternate soft nontoxics makes sense with steel as the baseline, lead is a non issue for waterfowl.  If your making the transition from upland to waterfowl, forget everything you know about lead and learn about the ammo you are going to use.  If your really serious about learning about waterfowl loads a chronograph and pattern board will give you way more info than spread sheet comparing to lead.  Loading a batch of steel target loads to match the speed of your hunting  loads and spending time on a sporting clays or skeet field will really improve your ability to harvest waterfowl, the trap range is worthless for a waterfowl hunter as you get very few shot rising and going away from you unless most of your hunting is jump shooting.

Sporting clays or better yet, your own thrower helps you stay up too speed.  In years past, we have practiced out of our ground blinds with clays coming at us, from behind us and across us.  Have not done so for the past several years and my shooting has suffered as a result.  Expensive, but if ya practice with what you are gonna hunt with, ya do much better. 
I'm old and I am not going to spend the $$ for Heavy shot or tongsten.  Don't need a Chrono as I make sure they are within the range of my shells and ability be fore I shoot. 
Everyone should pattern, some shot/wad combos just plain don't pattern well in certain guns.

[CP]

Nice program my fellow engineer. 

You might find this thread interesting:

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,73776.0.html

[BTStewart]

Thanks, CP. Hmm, now I'm thinking of ways to display sectional density information as well in the next version of the program...