Budget Cartridges

[ips]

Missed by an inch!? Maybe it was the wind that blew the shot off line

Not wishing to sound argumentative but if it is not possible to miss by an inch then what is the minimum distance that it is possible to miss ?

 

[jwpzx9r]

Not wishing to sound argumentative but if it is not possible to miss by an inch then what is the minimum distance that it is possible to miss ?

Well Ian while it is most definitely possible to miss by an inch or even less than that ... but with a shotgun at about thirty metres I don't think it is something you would have consciously factored in to the outcome

 

[ips]

Correct I don't quantify lead anyway. I did not bring up the inch thing but as it's here now we cannot ignore that apparently there is a minimum distance to miss but it's not an inch.

So what is it

 

[ips]

I think the blind testing thing is irelevant we have all done the pocket full of shrapnel thing and yes none of us could tell much if any difference this is why the only test for cartridge performance is over at least one thousand over at least four shoots.

 

[MJJ]

A molecule of air (O2) must surly be the smallest amount to miss by.  As if you were two molecules over that would result in a hit.

OR If i had used 7's instead of 7.5's i would have hit that.

But then a miss is as good as a mile!!!!!!!!!!

Must try harder springs to mind.

 

[EdLyons]

Don't bring harder springs into it!

How much antimony do they have?

 

[Nimbusgb]

It is of course possible to 'miss' even after hitting a clay! I have seen clays with a single or even 2 pellet holes in but not 'broken'!

 

[Gavin]

Ok I'm out my head hurts

 

[Jim Wheeler]

a short true story about mr George D, an African Champs in FSP, 5 years ago,, he was out on the practice ranges,and said he was unhappy with the cartridge, saying they were a tad fast (!) , what else is there available, as you can imagine the `entourage` with him rustled up alternatives,, which then suited him. he said the 1st cartridge was taking the nose off, and he second barrelled a few, as he missed in front. unreal, but true. (don't ask me what the ammo was,,i forgotten !)

 

[ips]

How much in front did he miss, it wasn't a mere inch or so surely ?

 

[Hamster]

I totally agree, as for speed perception I think its genetic, some people can detect a difference in speed, and some cannot. As for consistency the difference in forward allowance at 1400 feet per second and 1500 is measured in inches, so is consistency really relevant? I think that components are more important, what i think we are searching for is barrel and cartridge compatibility, the best pattern possible found by trial and error, I bought some cheapies once that took the bottom of the clay out consistently, and left the top spinning time and again, other produce even kills! 

You know sometimes I have seriously wondered about this, as a very young boy I was never without a catapult. Not the type we have now that shoots lead balls but imagine a thick piece of U shaped wire with mid strength electrical cable wound around the stem with the last cm trapping 5 strands of extremely thin rubber   now imagine thick electrical wires in about inch length turned U shaped to provide the ammo  :spiteful: .

The whole thing fits inside a clenched fist yet I give you my word has accounted for thousands of collared dove and below sized birds. Absolutely lethal for that and very very painful on your childhood foes too, I doubt the velocity ever went much over 200 fps so you had to learn your leads and trajectories.  :hi:

 

[Hamster]

Well Ian while it is most definitely possible to miss by an inch or even less than that ... but with a shotgun at about thirty metres I don't think it is something you would have consciously factored in to the outcome

The example of a miss by one inch is rhetorical, the fact is there is a difference in cartridge speeds and that will cause the shot mass to arrive later. There is no point applying mathematical equations which take the pattern size into account to help prove that misses can't be down to speed. The way we shoot is not in exact robotic movements, after a few years you begin to feel the lead, dare I say even see it. 

If you set up a robotic arm to give centre breaks on a 40 yard crosser and then progressively drop the velocity there will come a time when the clay will be missed by a few inches time and again. The sweet spot of feeling and seeing the lead differs from person to person, it isn't that slow won't break, it's the manner and ease of those breaks and of course the quality of the break that builds confidence.

 

[dashman1]

Maybe we should look at ability and not blame equipment

 

[schmokinn]

Correct I don't quantify lead anyway. I did not bring up the inch thing but as it's here now we cannot ignore that apparently there is a minimum distance to miss but it's not an inch.

So what is it

a micron :crazy:

or in laymans terms a gnats tadger!

 

[Jim Wheeler]

One day everyone will catch on the George's sense of humour. :sarcastic:

Hook, line and sinker comes to mind??  :biggrin:

haha, you think so?   didn't realize there were folk more experienced,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[ips]

The example of a miss by one inch is rhetorical, the fact is there is a difference in cartridge speeds and that will cause the shot mass to arrive later. There is no point applying mathematical equations which take the pattern size into account to help prove that misses can't be down to speed. The way we shoot is not in exact robotic movements, after a few years you begin to feel the lead, dare I say even see it.

If you set up a robotic arm to give centre breaks on a 40 yard crosser and then progressively drop the velocity there will come a time when the clay will be missed by a few inches time and again. The sweet spot of feeling and seeing the lead differs from person to person, it isn't that slow won't break, it's the manner and ease of those breaks and of course the quality of the break that builds confidence.

Eloquently explained hamid. Much better than I could have done but exactly what I meant.

 

[Finners]

shot 1000's of them and there great though i do tend to use more expensive shells for comps :haha:

superfasts especially in fibre seem really kicky to me...all about perception and everyone is different i guess.

Funny you should say that. I tried the F-black 28g Fibres (being talked about earlier)  Got really good kills for sure, but I couldn't say they were soft on the shoulder (someone said they think they are) So I agree, each of us feel things differently.

On the whole, I agree with Ed and Guru, BUT.............I'm also looking for a clean cartridge too.

In my little trial I have found some cheaper carts to be particularly grubby comapred to the Evo's. (The Velocities in particular)

Thing is, I have had a good bash with the Evo's, and I reckon they are pretty good overall. In fact I think prefer them to the F-blacks. 

In any event, my trial will end soon as I'm hoping to get a batch of either the Hull Comp X or Superfasts to try out for a while. After these, I settle on either of the Hulls or the Evo's as ultimately I don't see any point in spending over £200 a thou.

 

[ips]

In all the excitement I forgot the original question.

Power blue seemed ok as did superfast.

 

[Mark Jones]

Ken velocity, been shooting them for the last 3 years and find them awsome, much better than me. They also scored me a 93 ex 100 at Gunsite and 90Ex 100 at westfield, speak forthemselves i think! as I said better than I will ever be able to complain about.

 

[westley]

What brand is Ken Velocity shooting then ????