Do Overshot Card Effect Patterns?

 

When I started reloading, I heard a lot of people say overshot cards have a negative impact on patterns, so I took the stand of never using them. That habit stuck even when I heard folks say overshot cards have no impact on patterns. Afterall, if it has no effect, what's the point? And I've never heard anyone claim overshot cards have a positive impact on patterns.

Being bored, I decided to see for myself. Now, this wasn't a lab test or in any way intended to be conclusive. It's just a dude shooting stuff in the backyard waiting till the time when he can start on the beer without raising eyebrows.

12 ga 2.75” Rio
G-1000
30 g HS-6
CSD100 + stiff felt square
1 oz #4 steel
 
A.       16 ga .042” overshot card
B.       16 ga .0875” mini nitro card
C.      Soft felt square .375”
D.      12 ga Gualandi plastic overshot disc .073”
F.        Control load with 2 x stiff felts under shot
 

Pattern at 40 yards Remington 870 Express through a Rem flush IC choke

Load:	Shot in 30” circle	Total shot on paper
A: 16 ga OSC	129 / 192 = 67.2%	175
B:: 16 ga nitro card	117 / 192 = 60.9%	164
C: soft felt	71 / 192 = 37%	137
D: plastic disc	119 / 192 = 62%	175
F: control	136 / 192 = 70.8%	175

(BTW, the circle was smoother, but I had to go over it again with a thicker sharpie to make it show up in the photo.)

No overshot device. 136 / 192 = 70.8%

Overshot card. 129 / 192 = 67.2%

7 fewer pellets--meh. Maybe a bit less even? I call it a wash.

BPI/Gualandi plastic overshot card. 119 / 192 = 62%

This one surprised me since it's sold as not impacting patterns.

Nitro card. 117 / 192 = 60.9%

Pattern performance only matched by my ability to hit the paper...

~3/8" soft felt. 71 / 192 = 37%

This one also surprised me; I was expecting a poor pattern, but not this bad. It also makes me wonder about the older RSI loads that specify felts on top of the shot.

Conclusion? We don't need no stinkin' conclusions.

It appears the overshot devices do/don't hurt patterns binary is to simplistic, and that overshot device composition is more important than it's mere presence. Once again, like all things shotgunnish, it all depends.

And... another load might not work out the same way of course.

Hunter Alingments

 

They all say things like “respect the ducks” and “harvest” instead of kill.  But what impact do they actually have on the hunt? 

	LAWFUL	NEUTRAL	CHAOTIC
GOOD	The Sportsman: He won’t shoot a minute before shooting hours start, buys an extra duck stamp, and will help a kid out.	The Nostalgic: He wants to relive the glory of The Old Days, youthful rule breaking and all.  Like a middle-aged man watching Dazed And Confused.	The Farmer: Working with nature breeds a love of nature...  But also a frustration with nature eating their crops.
NEUTRAL	The Performancer: The rules are part of the game—hope you can keep up.	Daddy Warbucks: He’ll spend a lot on HIS hunt, and he needs LEO’s to keep the riff raff out of his club’s marsh.	The Redneck: The whole, “Hey y’all, watch this!” can be entertaining, but you don’t always want folks to know you’re a witness.
EVIL	The Busy-Body: He uses the rules to show you how much better he is.	The One-Up’er: He uses his stories to show you how much better he is.	The Poacher: There’s nothing really funny about this cocksucker.  The Shelob of the hunting world.

              

GOOD – EVIL: How good they are for the sport; encouraging new hunters, expanding access and opportunities, maintaining hunters’ reputations, etc. 

LAWFUL – CHAOTIC: How much value do they put on hunting regulations and ethics. 

Not captured in this grid is the Blindmate Enjoyment Factor (BEF). 

Ranked from most to least fun to be around:

The Redneck. (Even if nothing happens, there’s always the chance that it will.)

The Nostalgic. (Most of these guys aren’t oppressive about how cool old crap is (or was).)

The Farmer. (The griping about the weather can get old fast, but it’s usually made up for by shear knowledge of their land and its animals.)

The Sportsman. (He can be a real good companion so long as you don’t cross any lines.  Generally a limited sense of humor.)

The Performancer. (Depending on how good he actually is, you stand to gain from hunting with him: it’s always nice to have someone who can actually call.  On the other hand, if he’s too good a shot, you end up looking like a dipsy-doddle.)

The Poacher.  (No matter what, you aren’t shocking them by taking a third hen mallard by accident.)    

The One-Up’er.  (There’s always earplugs.)

Daddy Warbucks.  (Just remember the camel and the eye of the needle bit.)

The Busy-Body.  (Practice sneaking lead shotshells into his blind bag or extra ducks onto his strap.  That’s about the only way to enjoy the self-righteous.)

              

Does Duplexing Steel Shot Impact Patterns?

 

Am I the only one who’s noticed that in the last few years, a sizable percentage of new movies are simply rehashes of older ones?  Mad Max, RoboCop, Top Gun,  Running Man…*  It isn’t just movies, but music and clothing too.  Is there no originality any more?   

Well, there certainly doesn’t seem to be in the shotshell world: witness the flurry of duplexed steel shot loads that are coming out.  Of course, duplexing steel shot sizes is an old idea.  In the late 1980’s, Remington marketed steel shotshells loaded with blends of shot sizes.**  The rational was, as stated in Remington’s brochure, Shooting Steel Shot with Confidence (1987):

“With new SP MultiRange Duplex™ shells, heavier shot is loaded in front of lighter shot to help you cover the entire range of 12 gauge possibilities. At closer ranges, the smaller shot size performs just as you'd expect, providing pattern density and uniformity, while the heavier shot increases your effective range. At longer ranges, the larger shot size supplements the pattern density of the smaller shot and provides high energy for penetration and knock-down power.” 

They even included a fancy picture to help explain.

Though, on closer inspection, it appears to be an add for some kind of multi-choke system…

Not to be outdone, a couple years later, Federal released shells with three different shot sizes. 

Both were dropped within a few years.

Just like a trailer for Saving Private Ryan II, the latest round of innovation doesn’t sound that innovative. 

Winchester Final Pass: “Features a unique mix of precision-plated steel shot sizes to deliver maximum pattern density and pellet energy upon impact”.***

Federal Ultra Steel: “Available in… double-stack loads that feature two sizes of shot: smaller pellets that create full patterns and larger ones that deliver better lethality at a distance.”

Remington Nitro Steel Duplex: “Blended, high velocity magnum steel payload gives dense patterns with the smaller shot size close up, while the larger shot hits hard close and maintains energy at longer ranges.”

Kent Fasteel+: “Each Fasteel+ shell incorporates a unique layered shot configuration, containing two different shot sizes in a single payload. For example, our 2x4 loads feature a layer of No. 2 shot over an equal amount of No. 4 shot, allowing the smaller shot to draft behind the larger pellets for tighter patterns and improved terminal performance. This innovative design ensures better penetration, enhanced pellet distribution, and increased knockdown power at longer distances.”

Migra Stacked Steel: “…whether you’re targeting ducks, geese, or other waterfowl. Combining multiple shot sizes in one load, the Migra Stack Load provides an edge in the field by increasing versatility across different hunting situations.”

Unfortunately, once you start doing the math, The idea of having a more effective all-around shotshell, since it contains long-range and short-range pellets or a goose-sized and a duck-sized pellets, just doesn’t pencil out until you get up to 12 gauge 3.5” or 10 gauge loadings.†

But, as seen in Kent’s blurb, there’s another claimed advantage to duplexed shot sizes; namely, that inclusion of larger shot will impact the patterning of the smaller shot.  According to this belief, when larger shot is loaded on top of smaller shot, the smaller will draft behind the larger and pattern tighter.††  Conversely, if the large and small shot are reversed, the larger will spread out the smaller producing a wider pattern.‡  In both cases, the load is thought of as a load of smaller shot with the larger providing pattern manipulation.

The questions are:

1)        Does combining different shot sizes actually effect patterns?

2)        If so, s it actually an advantage over the same shot charge of just the smaller size?

To answer these questions, I thought I make some holes in paper.  I make no claims to scientific integrity—this is a back yard, hey-y’all-watch-this kind of test.  I only shot one pattern of each of the following combinations.  It was getting windy, making it hard to get the paper to stay on the board.  Also, I had been shooting for a while and my shoulder was tired.  (I’ll finish shooting some more later and update the numbers if needed.)  But even if it’s shoddy testing, it’s a heck lot more useful data than this from Remington:

      

 

I chose a pretty standard duck load using #4 shot.  I wanted a load that would actually be useful (for someone anyway) but didn’t use up too much hard-to-find powder.  Also, I have a lot of #4 shot, which I hate.  

As controls, I loaded 1.125 oz of #4 shot (for the whole shot charge) and 1 oz of #4 shot (for the pellet count.

The duplexed shot charges we set up to provide the same pellet count as an ounce of #4 shot, which comes out to .875 oz of #4 and .25 oz of #1.

               #4: 438 g = 192; 383 g = 168

               #1: 438 g = 103; 109 g = 26

I loaded large shot on top and large on the bottom to test the tightening/spreading theory.  I also tried large and small blended and large and small stacked just for the fun of it. 

12 ga 2.75” Rio
Rio G-1000
32 g A.Steel
LBC43 + felt as needed
492 g steel shot
        A: 492 g #4 (216 pellets).  Control #1
        B: 438 g #4 (192 pellets). Control #2‡‡
        C: 109 g #1 under 383 g #4 (26 + 168 = 194 pellets)
        D: 383 g #4 mixed with 109 g #1 (26 + 168 = 194 pellets)
        E: 383 g #4 under 109 g #1 (26 + 168 = 194 pellets)
        F: 194 pellets stacked thus:
               9 pellets #1
               84 pellets #4
               9 pellets #1
               84 pellets #4
               9 pellets #1
I don't include velocity or pressure values because I don't know them.  It is, as far as I know, an un-tested load.  I am not recommending it.  

 

Patterned through a Remington Express with a Rem. flush IC choke at 40 yards. 

Load:	Shot in 30” circle	Total shot on paper
A: shot weight control	133 / 216 = 61.6%	183
B:: shot count control	111 / 192 = 57.8%	166
C: #4’s on top	116 / 194 = 59.8%	177
D: #4 and #1 mixed	96 / 194 = 49.5%	170
E: #1’s on top	146 / 194 = 75.3%	180
F: shot stacked	124 / 194 = 63.9%	170

 

Of course, if I shot multiple patterns with each shell, it might change the numbers significantly.  But taken as it is, it does still point in some directions. 

Of the pair of loads of straight #4's, the heavier charge (A) obviously prints better than the lighter (B).  

1-1/8 oz #4's

1 oz #4's

Interestingly, as a spreader, large shot on the bottom (C) doesn’t seem to work, which roughly equals the pellet count control (B).  Far better as a spreader is the blended shot charge (D).

7/8 oz #4's on top of 1/4 oz #1's

7/8 oz #4's and 1/4 oz #1's mixed

For tightening the pattern, large shot on top (E) does indeed appear to work.  Not only did that load beat both controls in pattern percentage, but more importantly, in pattern pellet count too.  

1/4 oz #1's on top of 7/8 oz #4's

The stacked charge (F) is interesting: it seems to have balanced the tightening and spreading effect to create a neutral pattern.  Kind of like the sneakers with tuxedo look.  The ridiculous amount of fiddling required in loading makes the sicko in me want to recommend it. 

7/8 oz #4's and 1/4 oz #1's stacked

The question then arises, why not just control the pattern with choke constriction?  I suppose, if you had two loads you wanted to use through the same choke, and wanted to even out the performance?  Say, if the choke likes a goose load, but not the duck load, duplexing the duck load might be a way to bring it into line with the other?  Of course, you could most likely find another non-duplexed duck load that would work. 

 UPDATE 7/25/25:

The test of the variations on the #4 load above are just one data point.  They don't prove anything except that that particular choke likes load E, and therefor, that we can't say duplexes never tighten patterns.  But the test doesn't prove that duplexes always tighten patterns.  I'd have to test more loads to decide that.     

While rummaging though a box of old patterns last night, I came across some of a duplexed load I'd tried a few years ago and had forgotten about.  At the time, I was working on another project and had thrown in a duplex just to see what would happen.  My results were mixed and generally unimpressive from a practical hunting standpoint.  But they do illustrate the fact that we don't have a Law yet.

12 ga 3" Remington .25" basewad
Win 209
35 g Alliant Steel
NTC 3"
495 g steel shot
    G. 53 x #BBB under 10 x #F (63 pellets total)
    H. 68 x #BBB

Patterned through a Remington Express  at 50 yards through these chokes:

   Carlson’s extended Light Modified (.714”)
   Carlson’s extended Improved Modified (.704”)
   Hasting's extended Steel Shot Full (.706” actually an IM) 

	G. #F x #BBB	H. shot weight control
Carlson’s extended IM	35 / 63 = 55.5%	52 / 68 = 76.5%
Carlson’s extended LM	45 / 63 = 71.4%	54 / 68 = 79.4%
Hasting’s Steel Shot Full	47 / 63 = 74.6%	46 / 68 = 67.6%

Here we see that the duplex was not improving patterns with the LM or IM chokes--in fact they're degraded in percentage as well as pellet count.  However, the duplexed load performs better with the third choke in both percentage and pellet count--it's only 1 more, but still, that's more (cf. This Is Spinal Tap).  Again, we can't say "never" or "always" with duplexes.  To Kent's claims at the top of the post, all we say is, "ok, maybe."

But we can also say duplexing is a handloader's tool that might solve a particular problem.  Generally, I chose a load and find a choke that works for it.  But what if I can't switch chokes?  Of those six combos, I'd pick the straight #BBB with the Carlson's IM; but if I had the Hasting's choke stuck in that gun, the duplex would be a better choice than the one-size load.  Imagine I have a fixed choke gun that I want to shoot #3's with, but I can't get the pattern I want from them.  I could try duplexing the shot, and it might help.  

---

* Part of me hopes for Titanic II.

** Remington also duplex lead shot in the 1980’s.  I don’t know if they or anyone else had done it earlier.  I find it hard to believe they were the first.

*** As well as, interestingly, “Half-sized shot improves pellet counts without sacrificing critical penetration”

† Let’s look at a #BB x #2 combo.  #BB steel = 72 pellets/oz.  #2 steel = 125 pellets/oz.  Since what will kill a goose will kill a duck, we’ll start with the goose portion of the load.  According to CONSEP, we need at least 50 pellets in the pattern for a goose.  So, assuming a 75% pattern, we’d need .93 oz of #BB in the shell.  Again, CONCEP stipulates 85 pellets for a mallard, which with the #BB’s already there, means at least 35 #2’s in the pattern.   Assuming the same 75%, we need .376 oz of #2’s in the shell.  That means a load with 1.305 oz of shot would provide the bare minimum for geese and large ducks with NO margins for error.  We need those margins obviously, so prudence would guide us to 1.375 or 1.5 oz of shot.

† This itself is based on the widely held belief that larger shot patternstighter than smaller shot.

‡ I’ve never gotten a clear answer on why this would happen.  Perhaps because the larger shot retains more velocity and pushes through the slowing down smaller? 

‡‡ This perhaps isn’t a fair comparison, since the lighter shot charge will lead to a higher muzzle velocity, which touches on another piece of received wisdom, viz. that slower shot patterns better.   

Steel Shot Then and Now

 

All duck hunters are divided into three parts.  The first are those who started hunting after the nation-wide lead ban.  The second are those who stopped hunting after the ban.  And the third are those who hunted on either side of the ban. 

The first group doesn’t really enter into this tirade. They were, at most, boys in 1988-92 and maybe accompanied their dads for a season or two; a lot of them weren’t even born at that point.  All they’ve known is “modern” steel shot, meaning steel shot loads from the 2000’s on.  From older hunters, they’ve heard tell of what it was like hunting waterfowl with lead and how it compared to steel shot, and how steel shot loads have developed and so on, but of these things, they have no direct experience. 

The second and third set of duck hunters are older men who grew up hunting with lead before being forced to switch to steel shot.  Some welcomed the shift away from toxic shot, but most resented it.  Some so much so, that they stopped waterfowling altogether. 

At the time of the ban, the main complaints about steel shot were:

•   Steel shotshells are more expensive then lead
•   Steel shot damages shotgun barrels
•  Steel shot lacks the ballistic qualities of lead and cripples more game. 

All of these were true to one extent or another, though not without a paragraph of context and caveat for each.  However, these statements were made ad nauseum to the point that, like all slogans, they became received wisdom.    

•  Steel shot was rammed down hunters’ throats by an over-reaching government under the influence of anti-hunting groups using crap science to further their unamerican agenda.  Godless commie homos. 

This fourth statement may or may not be true, but fortunately, it doesn’t pertain to what I’m addressing here.*  

As to the first complaint, that steel shotshells are more expensive, this may very well have been true in the mid to late 1970’s, but by the time I started buying shotshells in 2005, they were about the same.  Obviously, at some point in that thirty-year span, the prices came down (I would assume this was a function of economy of scale).  At this point, this is really a complaint only made by those hunters who left the sport at the time of the ban.  And since it’s obviously no longer true, it has faded and doesn’t get trotted out much. 

I'll deal with the second complaint, damage, some other time.

The third complaint was that steel couldn’t take game as cleanly as lead.  This is either true or false depending on our expectations.  In 1973, the standard duck and pheasant load was a 12ga 2-3/4” shell with 1-1/4 oz of #4 lead shot at 1330 fps.  A look at the literature of the day (velocity and energy tables in lyman’s 2^nd for example) makes it clear that this load was expected to take ducks at up to 60 yards.  When held to that standard, yes #4 steel at 1330 fps becomes a poor performer at best.  On the other hand, a #1 steel pellet at 1330 fps can cleanly kill a duck at ~50 yards.**  Manufacturers told hunters to go up two shot sizes when switching from lead to steel, which might work for individual pellet performance, but not for pattern quality since the pellet counts don’t match.***  A new balance between shot size, pellet count, velocity, and recoil had to be found; and this in turn required  a new set of range expectations which took a while to catch on.  But now, most of the verbiage speaks of 40 yards as the border line between “ethical” hunting and skybustin’.    

This leads to another truism we hear a lot from older duck hunters, namely that early steel loads were anemic.  Birds would be hit squarely in the decoys, shrug, and fly off.  Retrieved birds would have shot fall out from under the feathers when picked up.  Hunters could hear the shot bounce off the bird.  I have heard all these stories and been told about all the birds wounded and lost because the pellets didn’t hit hard enough.  Fortunately, about the early 2000’s the manufacturers figured it out, and now we have useable steel shotshells (though still not as awesome as lead loads of yore of course).    

Well, the truth is… not really.  While some of the early Western loads were pretty slow (12 ga 3” 1.5 oz at 1200 fps loads), they were dropped fast.  From the get-go, Remington offered two main steel shot loads: 12 ga 3” 1-1/4 oz at 1375fps, and 12 ga 2-3/4” 1-1/8 oz at 1365 fps, both in #1, #2, and #4.  Over the last 47 years, they’ve added and dropped different gauges, shot sizes, charges, and speeds, but their mainstay is still 12 ga 3” 1-1/4 oz and 2-3/4” 1-1/8 oz loads at about 1400 fps.  The Slower, heavier loads from the late 70’s and early 80’s like Federal’s and Remington’s 3” 1-3/8 oz or the 2-3/4” 1-1/4 oz loads at 1265-1275 fps also got a speeding up to 1300 fps.  The fact is, with the exception of the 3” 1-1/8 oz at 1550 fps load and the 12 ga 3-1/2” shell,† most of the steel loads commonly used by duck hunters have been on the market almost from day one.  I tore open a 12 ga 3” Federal Hi Power Steel shell from 1979, a 3” Federal Classic Steel load from the mid 1990’s and a brand new 12 ga 3” Federal Speed Shok… same wad.  The lack of development is even more striking for the other gauges; the loads for 10 ga, 16 ga, and 20 ga are virtually the exact same as when first introduced in the early 1980’s.†† 

But those are all numbers on a page—what about field results?  In 1973, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife decided too many birds were dying of lead poisoning at Sauvie Island Wildlife Area, and they mandated steel shot only starting with the 1974-75 season.  Outrage ensued with frothy predictions of damaged guns, increased crippling and lost birds, and complaints about the high cost of shells (which had to be purchased at the check station for $5/box (?)).  In light of which, the following table from ODFW’s harvest statistics for SIWA is boringly monotonous. 

season	Total birds	Daily bird average	Total hunters	Daily hunter average	Birds per hunter	Hunt days per season
1976-77	28996	617	9954	212	2.9	47
1975-76	25659	546	9015	192	2.8	47
1974-75	15573	331	7737	165	2.0	47
1973-74	15684	341	8327	181	1.9	46
1972-73	19789	412	10296	215	1.9	48
1971-72	19302	411	11445	244	1.7	47

 

As you can see, there wasn’t a drop in the number of birds taken per hunter in the first year of the steel mandate.  The only change was in the total number of hunters, though only by 600 over the year previous (the last lead shot year).  And that wasn’t the lowest it had been in recent years: in 1964-65, they had only 168 hunters a day taking home only 1.6 birds a day.  The main problem with that first year wasn’t crippling or gun damage—or even fewer birds bagged.  It was hunter push back.  A longish quote from the Oregon Wildlife Commission’s mid-season update on the lead ban:

“We asked [SIWA manager, Frank] Newton what the reactions of hunters have been during the first month of using steel shot at Sauvie Island.

One of his first comments was that hunters had been skeptical about the new shells at first but most accepted them after use in the field. Generally, the hunters who used to get lots of birds using lead shot are still getting lots of birds. The hunters who brought in few ducks before now have a brand-new alibi which, Newton says, some of them are using liberally.

The secret of consistent success on ducks at Sauvie Island, as in most other areas, is to use decoys, learn to use a call effectively, and let the ducks get closer than 40 yards before shooting. The hunters who can do this are bagging as many ducks as they did before using steel shot, Newton said. [Emphasis added.] Some even feel the new loads are more effective at the closer ranges than lead.

So far no one has pointed out any damage to shotgun barrels which have been used with the steel loads. Many hunters called the Commission before the season opened to ask about this. They feared the hard pellets would score the insides of their gun barrels or that continued use would ruin the chokes on their guns. Heavy plastic liners in the shells have apparently prevented any scratching of shotgun bores but it is probably too soon to tell what the long-term effects on shotgun chokes will be.

As to effectiveness, hunters say the steel loads seem to do the job if they are used within reasonable ranges. Although the harvest of ducks is lower so far than it was last year, the take of geese is up by nearly 50 percent. Hunters who have taken these hardy birds say the steel loads were very effective on them.”‡

I highly doubt the story will change; it's become a part of our Hunting Heritage.  Chatter in duck blinds, gun shops, and on the Information Superhighway, reinforced by articles like this one, will continue to form a feedback loop.  But in some ways that's reassuring: it's the way culture forms, and as long as we don't end up dragging people behind a truck or give up on toothpaste, it's nice to know it's still working.  

---

* Let me just say, that if it is true that anti-hunter groups are successfully lobbying for more restrictions, the hunting community has no one to blame but itself.  Hunters should be the most aggressive about defending the quality of habitat—but how often do you find beer bottles, Skoal tins, cigarette butts, pop cans, hulls, wads, and other trash littering public hunting areas?

** We’ll leave out the question of how many folks were actually successfully making 50-60 yard shots with either shot material…

*** 1-1/4 oz of lead #4 = 169 pellets

  1-1/4 oz of steel #2 = 156 pellets

  1-3/8 oz of steel #2 = 172 pellets

  1-1/4 oz of steel #1 = 129 pellets

  1-3/8 oz of steel #1 = 142 pellets

† Itself a product of the 1980’s

†† Now, one might say, “yes, but were they actually achieving those velocities?”  Well, what makes you think they’re achieving today’s advertised speeds?  Why would they lie back then, but not now?  For that matter, velocity wasn’t printed on the box for the most part till the 2000’s so it didn’t fill nearly the same marketing role it does today.  For what it’s worth, I shot three c.1993 Remington Nitro Steel 12 ga 3-1/2” shells  containing 1-9/16 oz #TT at 1300 fps over a chronograph.  Not a meaningful sample size, but I got an average of 1330 fps.  I stopped after three because my shoulder hurt.

‡ “Steel Shot, A Status Report” by Ken Durbin. Oregon Wildlife, December 1974, Vol. 29 No. 12. Pg. 7