3" Mag 20 Ga. Buckshot A Waste!?

[MattShlock]

I just determined something quite interesting and useful, to me, frankly.

I was comparing the amount of energy, by the numbers, in the ubiquitous 2-3/4" 20 Gauge #3 Buckshot rounds vs. the 3" (used to be "Magnum") 20 Gauge #2 Buckshot rounds. I expected some options and a little more net energy out of the longer shell which also throws bigger (.27" vs .25") pellets if actually fewer of them (18 vs. 20). But after doing some research and the calculations what I found is this:


-Remington and Winchester apparently aren't even making 3" 20 Gauge buckshot shells now.

-Remington's standard 2-3/4" #3 Buckshot shell is a hair more potent than Federal's and Winchester's at claimed 1,220 fps vs 1,200.

-Federal's 3" #2 Buckshot shell, at 1,100 fps, has 8% less energy than Remington's standard 2-3/4" mentioned above.

Note: That Remington standard 20 Gauge buckshot round has 18% less energy than everyone's 2-3/4" 12 Gauge #00 Buckshot shells.


No interest in buying those 3" 20 Ga. Buckshot shells anymore and one might as well go with Remington given the choice...

 

[RMcL]

So is the Foot Pounds of Energy calculation the most important factor in evaluating the effectiveness of Buckshot ammunition?

Why?

 

[MattShlock]

Ultimately, yes. Energy effectively placed on target is the goal of shooting it in the first place.

In this case it would seem reasonable to expect a "magnum" round to at least keep the same energy though it migh mean a sprinkle more powder to maintain velocity, like the 2-3'4" and 3" 12 Gauge magnum loads do, wouldn't you agree?

 

[RMcL]

Perhaps. However consider several major factors that may change the outcome.

- Retained downrange velocity - larger pellets loose velocity at a slower rate.
- Penetration of heavier pellets.
- Patterning from the specific Gun/Choke/Load combination.

Actual diameter/weight of pellets may be another concern since most commercial buckshot loads use smaller than nominal pellets. (SAAMI standards call for nominal diameter + .015").

A larger pellet can start slower, yet reach the target with equal or greater velocity than smaller pellets.

Given the ranges involved, it would seem penetration and pattern at the target are the major consideration for shotgunners.

However, all is not lost for those who like to refer to FPE figures. Although the calculations use velocity squared, most shotshells operate at very similar velocities. Thus FPE figures per pellet can provide a reasonable numerical comparison - if impact velocities are used in calculating the retained energy of different pellet sizes.

 

[MattShlock]

Interesting RMcL except when we compare these to 12 Gauge loads we see there is a 26% to 39% increase in energy with 2-3/4" Magnum and 3" 00 Buckshot shells over standard ones. Even the 3" 000 (from .33 to .36 caliber pellet) Buckshot rounds have 24% more energy!

All is pretty useless, I maintain, buying 20 Gauge 3" #3 Buckshot shells -- there's little, if any, advantage if not a pretty clear disadvantage. They would seem to be a marketing gimmick to me at this point.

 

[PetahW]

.

FWIW, my state (for one) bans the use of any 20ga buckshot on whitetail deer - a move I heartily agree with.
(We have "shotgun-only" & muzzleloader deer seasons here - no CF rifle's allowed on game)

Due to terminal performance issues, I no longer use buckshot, in any gauge, on deer.



.

 

[Boomer58cal]

Then you're shooting outside the effective range of buckshot. Get closer.

Nothing has terminal performance issues inside is effective range.

Boomer

 

[RMcL]

Given the velocity limits of buckshot rounds, pattern and penetration are core to success. If that can be expressed in FPE, I have no argument.

As for marketing gimmicks, the use of FPE figures in the firearms world was introduced at the dawn of the smokeless era by marketing types to make rounds like the .30-30 appear more powerful than black powder rounds like the .45-70.

The foot pounds of energy formula was created to compare the work of horses to simple vertical lift steam engines for removing water from mines in the 19th century.

As for #2B in 3" 20 gauge rounds - check out what happens to this 8 point Florida buck starting at frame 3:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvDMN4PlcZA

 

[amd6547]

I thought that "magnum" as used with shotgun loads referred to weight of shot charge...not mass times higher velocity.

 

[MattShlock]

As for marketing gimmicks, the use of FPE figures in the firearms world was introduced at the dawn of the smokeless era by marketing types to make rounds like the .30-30 appear more powerful than black powder rounds like the .45-70.

Speaking of gimmicks RMcL, just a reminder that I am comparing one 20 ga. shell to another using the same exact effectiveness predictive measurement. While the "magnum" one has fewer pellets (albeit one size larger), that are slower, and has less total net energy I presume it uses smokeless powder too, however, given its performance, it may use Pyrodex.

 

[RMcL]

MattShlock:

The Maximum Average Pressure for all 20 gauge rounds is 12,000 psi. Under this limited standard the 20 gauge runs up against MAP with heavy shot loads very quickly. Most magnum shotshells fire heavier payloads at a lower velocity, that is the case in this comparison; abeit with fewer but heavier pellets. Winchester's now discontinued 3" 20ga. #3B round fired 24 pellets at 1100 fps also.

Regardless, it is not the number of pellets in the load, it is the number in the pattern core delivered to the vital zone that counts.

I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion stated in your original post.

 

[MattShlock]

Winchester's now discontinued 3" 20ga. #3B round fired 24 pellets at 1100 fps also.

Regardless, it is not the number of pellets in the load, it is the number in the pattern core delivered to the vital zone that counts.

I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion stated in your original post.

RMcL;
Let's not introduce any red-herrings please. Are you arguing the pattern is different, better, or the penetration is significantly different with slightly bigger but slower pellets? Then ignoring the hit probability and number of wound channels which is decreased!? Let's stick to facts and not vague implications. And just so you know...

The 20 guage 3" Magnum Winchester ammo you cite as being discontinued was 1% more powerful than the standard 2-3/4" shell. Even at 1,100 fps vs. 1,200 there was NO NET DEPRECIATION IN ENERGY. But still they took it off the market -- there just wasn't enough of a difference, standard vs. magnum, and that was with a 20% increase (you glossed over I noticed) in the number of (yeah, 10% slower) pellets, plus...

That discontinued Winchester magnum load? Had 2% LESS energy than Remington's standard 2-3/4" shell!

There's little point to any of these 3" "Magnum" buckshot shells. We're all going to leave them for you to buy RMcL. Get 'em while you can...

 

[mavracer]

the penetration is significantly different with slightly bigger but slower pellets?

Yes as I stated on the other forum the larger pellets have 19% more mass which equates to 12% more momentum and 4% more energy per pellet. so while there would be fewer holes the ones remaining would be infact larger and deaper. IMHO power is a wash the problem lies in the fact that
A: the 2 3/4" 3 buck load is pretty effective at SD ranges and has adequate penatration for most situations.
B: The way the pellets are loaded make the 3 buck load pattern more evenly from most guns.
C: most guns lose capacity with 3" shells.

 

[RMcL]

MattShlock:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Herring: Something unimportant that is used to distract people from noticing or thinking about something important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No red herrings were present in my responses.

"Regardless, it is not the number of pellets in the load, it is the number in the pattern core delivered to the vital zone that count." RMc

Indeed, it appears that you agree with my response:

"Energy effectively placed on target is the goal of shooting it in the first place."
MattShlock

And yes, larger pellets have greater mass and momentum, which translates into greater penetration and "energy" downrange. From my hunting perspective, I will take the larger pellet approach anytime the pattern board reveals adequate patterns. Patterning buckshot is, for the shotgunner, as important as sighting in a rifle.

 

[MattShlock]

That's what you're hanging your hat on mavracer? That the fewer, slower, pellets with less energy overall have four percent (4%!) more "momentum" each? Seriously!?

Please stop misdirecting people to immaterial facts and selectively ignoring others to make an obviously nonsensical point. Each of the 10% fewer , slower, pellets admittedly also have two percent (only 2%!) more energy each but offer more resistance to deeper penetration having seventeen percent (17%!) more surface area.

In other words, to be clear, the 3" 20 Gauge #2 Buckshot shells ain't buyin' us nothin' over standard Remington 2-3/4" #3 Buckshot rounds, I think ya know it, and now you're kinda trolling here.

Maybe we need to shut such intentional misguidance down on this forum now as well...

 

[hogdogs]

While far from knowledgeable on sectional density etc... I did take the job of mod here so let me put that hat on first...

I do not think we can completely win either argument regarding this exact load comparison... No matter ho slight in percentile, if one pellet has an advantage of a pellet that is smaller but faster at the muzzle there is that advantage...

As is the fact that the overall numbers do bear that the magnum is not worth any additional recoil or cost for such a slight advantage...

Lets agree to disagree on preference if we must... but these are not some super duper yote shooter 85 yard wonder round...

MOD HAT OFF NOW...

As for me personally, I am fine buying the 2 3/4 #3 buck (#2 if I ever find any) patterns and performs fine at HD range and even out a decent piece at deer or yotes in the woods...

I did, however, buy 2 boxes of Federal 20 gauge 3 inch 18 pellet #2 simply because that was on the shelf at bass pro and I been slap out of buck for HD for near a year... Other than that I got 7 1/2 promo pack or slugs for HD...

It will suffice until I burn it off after restocking on cheap 2 3/4 buck I always used...

Brent

 

[mavracer]

Please stop misdirecting people to immaterial facts and selectively ignoring others to make an obviously nonsensical point.

Please by all means here is a quote from TFL's library.
"Often wrongly equated with killing power, energy is not a reliable gauge of this, as it does not take into account penetration or bullet performance."

 

[MattShlock]

"Often wrongly equated with killing power, energy is not a reliable gauge of this, as it does not take into account penetration or bullet performance."

Um, yeah, mavracer. And taken in isolation your latest point is true. However meaningless if not intentionally deceptive. As you know, and again gloss over, we're essentially talking about the same, simple, round lead projectiles! And yet you continue to try to misguide readers by selectively citing de minimis aspects that don't make a comprehensive difference worth finding and paying much more for the longer, potentially capacity limiting, hulls whilst ignoring key factors i.e. that the 3" shell carries fewer, slower, similar projectiles with less total energy.

Perhaps like Hogdogs or any other unsuspecting regular shotgun shooter, I was looking for these shells recently expecting that they would offer the same kind of enhanced performance as 12 gauge magnum and 3" shells do over standard 2-3/4" -- but they simply don't.

That you have pecuniary and emotional investments of varying degrees in the only one of the big three ammo companies that's (still) making the inefficient (yes, some shot sizes are more efficient in certain bores) 3" #2 Buckshot shell is the kindest motivation I can figure for you at this point mavracer.

 

[mavracer]

whilst ignoring key factors i.e. that the 3" shell carries fewer, slower, similar projectiles with less total energy.

I'm simply trying to educate you that while your conclusion is correct, your means of coming to that conclusion is wrong. If total energy and number of pellets were a good measure then a 1oz load of #6 shot traveling at 1300 would be far superior to the reduced recoil OO buck loads and a 85gr .243 would be a far better bear round than a 405gr 45/70 factory load.
I have no affection for the 3" 20 guage load in question and in fact use the same 2 3/4" remington load in my own 20.
Now I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears but energy is a poor measure of effectiveness.

 

[Bezoar]

yes and no. if it hits the target its not a waste.


as far as total ability to penetrate, velocity does help. so does mass. I keep getting told the 80 grain fmj from a 223 at 3000 fps is a perfect penetrator. yet a 45 colt 250 grain lrn at 900 fps out does it in most gel tests.