Innovation in Shotshellary

Several people have asked why it is that the munitions and firearms industry is constantly releasing new rifle cartridges--all of which, besides being amazing, aim at a very narrow niche generally already filled—and yet we haven’t seen a new shotgun gauge in… ever.  The latest new chamber length—not new gauge-- was the 3” 28 gauge in 2022, proceeded by the 3-1/2” 12 ga 34 years earlier (see Appendix A).

Firearms companies are always advertising how their shotguns have new, cutting-edge features; this new inertia operated shotgun is way different from the last inertia operated shotgun—generally because of cool new camo patterns and texturing on the forestock.  But they all shoot (or are supposed to) the same 12 ga shells.  In the same way, most of the munitions manufacturers’ updates in the last 30 years are to the packaging of their shotshells.  There have been tweeks over the last couple decades to muzzle velocity or shot charge weight, but the only real innovations have been the Fight Control and the Xelerator wads.  The flurry of “new” bismuth loads that have been flying around the last five years are just rehashes, and same with the TSS (albeit, more dense then the original Tungston-Iron shot).[1]

It seems obvious that, realizing you can only warm up leftovers so many times, the Big Three (or Big Two, I guess) would be looking for other sides to the envelope.  A 3” chambered 16 ga would be light in the hand, quick to the shoulder yet could easily hold a normal 12 ga’s pheasant load.  And a 14 ga would probably be perfect for jump shooting waterfowl.  An 11 ga goose gun would produce less felt recoil then a 12 ga without the heft of the 10.  However, all of these would require research and development and new assembly lines.  We can assume the cost/benefit analysis tells them it doesn’t make sense. 

But it does for rifles?  In 2007, Hornady knew everyone wanted a .30 TC, a cartridge that offered .30-06 performance in a .308 Win length: that would be a 150 grain bullet at 3000 fps in a 2” case.  That ½” shorter action made for a “faster handling” rifle?  The extra 180 fps turned a merely wounded animal into a dead one? [2]  That flop wasn’t cheap, but they figured it was worth a try.  Same could be said of the .300 WSM, or a shelf load of new cartridges.  Not all have been failures of course, and that payout makes it worth the risk I guess. 

The problem is us; we have a split personality.  We hold to the truth that a 12 ga shotgun will take any bird or small game animal from the quail to the swan (assuming proper load choice and shot placement), but we ignore the truth that a .30-06 will take any game animal from a groundhog to grizzly (assuming proper load choice and shot placement).  Neither cartridge shines at the edges but can be made to work satisfactorily across the whole spectrum.  The very mention of a new shotshell chambering incites hoots of mockery, outrage, and bewilderment (“Why would anyone every want a 3” 16 ga?  What would you even do with it?”)  from the same folks tripping over themselves to get a 6.5mm Creedmoor to put it in the safe next to their 6.5x55 Swede and .260 Rem.  Gun writers tell us, and we believe it, that Winchester and Federal/Remington don’t need to update the 10 gauge loadings [3] because hunters already have 3-1/2” 12 gauges (and besides, what about the whole “grandpa’s ol’ 10 gauge blowing up” line?). [4] 

So I put forward that in this culture of excess, there’s no reason for us consumers to not demand more shotgun options.  I don’t want a light 12, an all-arounder 12, and a heavy 12—I want a 13, a 12, and an 11.  I want the revival of the 2-7/8” 10 gauge and the introduction (reintroduction?) of the 3” 16 gauge.  We have chambers cut for 3-1/2”, so let’s use 3-1/4” shells.  You expect Veruca Salt to be satisfied with that one red dress? 

NOTES

[1] I don’t consider the Flight Stopper shot or Hex shot as actual innovations, but merely as marketers spinning half-finished shot as a great leap forward.  Same with duplexing shot types.  Both “developments” are really just manufacturing cost savings.

[2] We’ll ignore the fact that Hornady’s own 150 grain .308 Win Superformance load matches their .30 TC at 3,000fps.

[3] Federal introduced the first 10 gauge steel load in 1982.  1-5/8 oz, 1345 fps, #BB, #2.  Over the years, they offered more shot sizes, but they’ve deleted many of them.  Federal’s current 10 ga loads are: Black Cloud, 1-5/8 oz, 1375 fps, #BBB, #BB, #2. and Speed Shok, 1-1/2 oz, 1450 fps, #T, #BBB, #BB, #2.  Handloaders have been getting 1600 fps or more with 1-1/2 oz and 1425 fps with 1-5/8 oz loads for almost 20 years.  With Federal’s resources, it seems obvious they COULD do more if they wanted.

[4] How many 10 gauges, of any vintage, do you find on the used rack?  In a sea of 12’s and 20’s of various (often dubious) provenance, there may be one mid 90’s BPS10 wedged in like the fat kid on the plane.  What’s to stop dude-rock from loading a TSS turkey load in grandpa’s ol’ 12 ga?

 

APENDIX A

A  non-exhaustive list of cartridges released in the last 25ish years. 
·        1997 - .260 Rem, 6.5-06 A-Square, 
·        1999 - .300 RUM, 6.5-284 Norma
·        2000 - .375 RUM
·        2001 – 7mm WSM, 300 WSM, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, 7mm RUM
·        2002 - .270 WSM, 6.8mm SPC, 7mm Rem SAUM, .338 RUM
·        2003 - .223 WSSM, .243 WSSm, 6.5 Grendel
·        2004 - .25 WSSM
·        2005 - .325 WSM, 6.5x47 Lapua
·        2006 - .338 Fed
·        2007 - .30 TC, 6.5 Creedmoor, .308 Marlin Express, .375 Ruger
·        2008 - .300 RCM, .338 RCM, .30 Rem AR
·        2009 - .338 Marlin Express, .450 Bushmaster, .338 Norma Mag
·        2010 - .300 Blackout
·        2011 – 7.62x40mm WT
·        2013 - .26 Nosler, 6.5mm PRC
·        2014 - .45 Raptor
·        2015 - .28 Nosler
·        2016 - .30 Nosler, .33 Nosler
·        2017 - .22 Nosler
·        2018 – 6mm Creedmoor?
·        2019 - .350 Legend, .300 PRC
·        2020 – 6mm ARC, .27 Nosler
·        2021 – 6.8mm Western
·        2022 – 7mm PRC
·        2023 - .360 Buckhammer, .400 Legend

An almost exhaustive list of shotshell innovations:
·        C. 1900 -- Smokeless Powder (in shotshells)
·        1918 (or 1913?) – 8 gauge banned for waterfowl (an un-innovation I guess)
·        1928 - Plated shot
·        1932 - 3-1/2” 10 ga
·        1933 – 3” .410
·        1935 - 3” 12 ga 
·        1938 or 1939 -- Fold crimp (?) perhaps earlier?
·        1954 - 3” 20 ga
·        C. 1960 - Plastic shotcup (plastic shot wraps and overpowder wads had been used in the 50’s I think). 
·        1960 - Plastic hull 
·        1967 - All plastic hull (Wanda, goofy name for a goofy shell. Activ came out in the 1970’s)
·        C. 1970’s? - Buffer (?)
·        1973 - Steel shot (Federal)
·        1988 - 3-1/2” 12 gauge (Federal)
·        C. 1992? - Bismuth shot (Bismuth Cartridge Co.)
·        1998 - Tungston shot (Hevi Shot, and Federal)
·        2005 or 2007 - Flight Control Wad (Federal, Winchester’s version came out in 2012)
·        2010 - Xelerartor wad (Remington) I’m not sure if this is actually a good thing, or a disaster waiting to happen.  I predict it will be quietly forgotten soon. 
·        2022 – 3” 28 gauge

 

 

The Big Shot Likes Open Chokes (BSLOC) Rule

 

Waterfowling is replete with delightful paradoxes.  For example, we hunters pride ourselves in braving the cold and wet in pursuit of our sport, tacking up photos of early 20^th century market hunters in their soggy woolens and waxed cotton; but we spend hundreds of dollars on Gore-Tex, Thinsulate, and blind heaters (and thank God too—I certainly have no intention of staving off hypothermia and/or influenza with greasy buckskins and a bottle of whiskey).  Another paradox is the oft stated rule of thumb that larger sizes of steel shot, especially letter-sized, will produce more open patterns with tighter chokes and tighter patterns with more open chokes. 

I have no idea what the origin of the Big Shot Likes Open Chokes (BSLOC) Rule is.  Scanning back across the literature I have on hand, it is always stated as a given.  For example, BPI’s Status Of Steel VI from 1991 proclaims, “The appropriate tightness of a choke is also related to the particular size of pellets being used.  Larger pellets require a more open choke.” (pg.23)  And that’s it—no further explanation of WHY that may be, to say nothing of proof that it actually is the case.

I don’t know if I was born this way, or if it’s the result of reading books like A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! but I’m drawn to the cutting edge of yesteryear, the obscure, and technological dead ends.  My guitar has P90 pickups, I take great pride in the fact that our family used a videodisc player up through 2000, and I’d give up a lot of things for a C96.  So when I walked into the hardware store and saw two boxes of Remington Nitro Steel 12 ga 3.5" #TT’s, I had no choice.  When time came to pattern them, I followed the Received Wisdom and screwed in an Improved Cylinder. and paced off 50 yards.  I knew with only 69 pellets in the shell, the pattern was going to be sparce, but good grief.

IC @ 50 yards

36/69 = 52.2%

So I tried a Light Modified...

LM @ 50 yards

37/69 = 53.6%

...then a Modified.

Mod @ 50 yards

52/69 = 75.4%

At last I had something I could work with.  I went out and crippled this goose. 

Was this upset of the BSLOC Rule a fluke?  Well if you can’t shoot geese, you might as well shot paper.  The test for this is pretty straightforward: I shot a lot of goose loads.  I used a selection of letter-sized steel shot in case my 870 had an odd relationship with a particular size.  Most of the loads are handloads, but I threw in a couple factory shells as well (mostly because I had them on hand).  And no, I don’t have any intention of using a 550 g load of #F on geese; I loaded that one up specifically for this test. 

Chokes used:

Patternmaster Black Cloud Extended Full (.687”)
Carlson’s Sporting Clays Extended Improved Modified (.704”)
Hastings Steel Shot Extended Full (.706”) (actually an IM (maybe?))
Remington Flush Modified “A” (.710”)
Carlson’s Sporting Clays Extended Light Modified (.714”)
Remington Flush Improved Cylinder (.718”)
Hastings Flush Cylinder (.723”) (actually a Skeet (again, maybe))
Carlson’s Flush Cylinder (.730”)

Load A:

12 ga 3” Fed .090 replacement
f.209a
32 g A.Steel
MultiMetal 2.75” + felt x 1
550 g #F steel (50 pellets)

Load B: (factory load)

12 ga 3” Fiocchi Speed Steel
1.125 oz #BBB steel (70 pellets) @ 1475 fps

Load C:

12 ga 2.75” Fed. .090 replacement
f.209a
32 g A.Steel
CSD118
473 g #B steel (air rifle shot) (91 pellets)

Patterned at 40 yards with a Remington 870 Express:

Choke	Load A	Load B	Load C
Patternmaster Full	30/50 = 60.0%	56/70 = 80.0%	55/91 = 60.4%
Carlson’s IM	43/50 = 86.0%	53/70 = 75.7%	74/91 = 81.3%
Hasting’s Full	40/50 = 80.0%	53/70 = 75.7%	63/91 = 69.2%
Remington Mod	42/50 = 84.0%	52/70 = 74.3%	66/91 = 72.5%
Carlson’s LM	43/50 = 86.0%	52/70 = 74.3%
Remington IC	38/50 = 76.0%	48/70 = 68.6%	63/91 = 69.2%
Hasting’s Cylinder	32/50 = 64.0%	40/70 = 57.1%	47/91 = 51.6%
Calson’s Cylinder	26/50 = 52.0%	32/70 = 45.7%	33/91 = 36.3%

 

Load D:

12 ga 3.5” Winchester
w.209
35 g. A.Steel
TPS 3.5”
649 g. #F steel (59 pellets)

Load E: (factory load)

12 ga 3.5” Remington Nitro Steel
#TT steel, 69 pellets (1.5625 oz) @ MAX dr. eq.

Load F:

12 ga 3” Fed .090” base one-piece
w.209
35 g. A.Steel
LBC43
1.25 oz #BBB steel (75 pellets)

Patterned at 50 yards with a Remington 870 Express SuperMag: 

Choke	Load D	Load E	Load F
Patternmaster Full			60/75 = 80.0%
Carlson’s IM	34/59 = 57.6%	51/69 = 73.9%	52/75 = 69.3%
Hasting’s Full	40/59 = 67.8%	48/69 = 69.6%
Remington Mod		52/69 = 75.0%
Carlson’s LM	36/59 = 61.0%	37/69 = 53.6%	56/75 = 74.7%
Remington IC		36/69 = 52.2%
Hasting’s Cyl	22/59 = 37.3%		21/75 = 28%

 

Now, almost all shell and choke combinations only got shot once.  Yes of course, averages of five would have been standard patterning procedure and could have given a different percentage for each combo.  The load B pattern I got with the Hasting’s Cyl. choke may have been sparser, and the one with the Carlson’s IM may have been denser then a five shot average of either; but is it likely that that would have happened with ALL six loads?  In other words, even with the small sample size for the individual combos, when all the numbers in the table are taken together, trends do appear.  Think of it as a pattern of patterns. 

 Across all six loads, in no case does the either cylinder, (true Cyl and Skt), or IC outperform Modified or IM chokes.  Larger sample sizes might change the performances ranking of the LM to Full chokes—look at the numbers on Load B to see what I mean—but I highly doubt that put them below the Cyl and Skt tubes.  The IC appears to be the next stairstep up, but I’m not as confident on which direction it would move with a larger sample.  

But you might object, was it fair to compare flush chokes with extended steel shot chokes?  Sure, the more open chokes I have are flush mounted, but so is the Modified, which performed very well.  And though two of the extended chokes are designed (or at least marketed) specifically for steel shot, the other two, though safe with steel shot, are designed (or, again, marketed) for lead shot.   

Of course, birds aren’t killed by percentages.  A pattern may have a high number of pellets, but they may be all clumped leaving large areas of the pattern paper un-holed.  On the other hand, a pattern may have only the minimum number of pellets but have them evenly spaced across the target. 

 To illustrate the point, here are three patterns that have basicly the same percentage.  All are Fiocchi Speed Steel 1.125 oz #BBB

Rem. Mod @ 40 yards

52/70 = 74.3%

Hasting's Full @ 40 yards

53/70 = 75.7%

Carlson's IM @ 40 yards

53/70 = 75.7%

 

And while some folks use “tight” as interchangeable with “good,” some proponents of the BSLOC Rule do specify that open chokes produce more EVEN patterns with large shot.  

 After dismissing the patterns that fell woefully short of the 50 pellet minimum recommended for geese—which is to say, all but one pattern looser then Light Mod--I used two methods to evaluate evenness of patterns.

 First was a simple visual evaluation.  I was looking for an even spread, as well as noting the load/choke combo that appeared likely to be useable past the patterning distance based on the density of its core.

Second, I drew a 15” circle in the center of the 30” pattern to define the core.  Then I divided the outer ring of the pattern into quarters.  This created five roughly equal pattern zones. 

 I counted the pellets in each zone, and where two or more pellets could be covered by a 12 ga hull rim, I counted them as one hit.  These clumps obviously didn’t improve the evenness of the pattern; however, clumps in the core do imply a better long-range performance. 

I picked the most even pattern based on how similar the number of hits in the ring zones were and on how much clumping it had, and the best long-range load based on how dense the core was. 

The results of this dividing into zones fiddling turned out to coincide with the simple visual evaluation.  It was an interesting waste of time.

	A, numbers	A, visual	B, numbers	B, visual	C, numbers	C, visual
Patternmaster			Best LR	Best LR
Carlson’s IM					Best LR	Best LR
Hasting’s Full	Most even*	Most even*
Rem. Mod			Most even	Most even	Most even
Carlson’s LM	Best LR*	Best LR*
Remington IC						Best SR**

 

	D, numbers	D, visual	E, numbers	E, visual	F, numbers	F, visual
Patternmaster
Carlson’s IM			Best LR		Best LR
Hasting’s Full	Best?*			Most even***
Rem. Mod			Most even
Carlson’s LM		Most even*			Most even

 

*Neither #F load produced any patterns that met the 50 pellet minimum.  This isn’t surprising given the low in-shell pellet count.  But I evaluated them anyhow.  It’s remarkable how bad all of the Load D patterns were—there was no best.

**This load wasn’t the best looking one.  Though it had very little clumping, its core wasn’t much denser then the ring and probably would have been too thin in much more than five yards, forming a donut.  However, given that 40 yards is about all you can expect from #B penetration-wise, I made note of it as the best short-range pattern for this load. 

***This #TT load falls just short of the 50 pellet minimum, but is the most even with just one clump.

 

Comparing the evenings of the patterns to the raw percentages leads to some tweaking of which pattern is best but doesn’t reveal any upsets.  Again, neither of the Cylinders or the IC pattern better than the tighter chokes with any load. 

 Obviously, none of this proves that there isn’t a load of large steel shot that will pattern better with an open choke.  In fact, we can assume that some do—or did--because how else would the BSLOC Rule have started?  But the fact that I couldn’t come up with one makes me confident in saying this bit of Received Wisdom can be safely jettisoned. 

 

 

Hunter Aesthetics

 

Everyone wants to feel good.  Once you get past the demands of mere survival, we all pursue feeling good in one way or another--foodies, band groupies, model train enthusiasts, etc.  Obviously, this applies to us waterfowlers too.  You have the Daddy Warbucks Hunters, the Performance Hunters, the Gods Guns and Guts Hunters, the Nostalgic Hunters to name just a few subspecies.  All of these hunters choose their spots, gear, and manners to best reflect the type of hunter they are or aspire to be.  Why does a man choose (or wish he could choose) a fine bespoke double rather than the latest model of Italian autoloader?  While another man chooses a beat-up, 40-yeaqr-old 870?  I suppose there may be some hunters who don’t give a damn what kind of gun or camo or decoys they use, but I suspect that such a detachment from the accoutrements of the chase is itself a carefully studied detachment, kind of like the bed-head look (Do you have any idea how long it takes to look like I just woke up this way?).  I could go on at length about what gets other hunters’ outboard revving.  But I won’t. 

Instead, I’ll talk about Myself.  I’m a variation on the Nostalgic / Collector with a splash of Punk / DIY.  I’m drawn, not to hunting in the 50’s and 60’s, but in the 80’s when steel was young and camo was blotchy.  I like spray painting 5-gallon buckets, making wading poles out of broomsticks, and using old belt buckles for decoy weights.  My ultimate duck gun would be a late model Winchester 1897 threaded for choke tubes and some kind of sand colored paint job, set up to shoot steel.  I wish I had an unlimited supply of NTC wads and 800x.  I love the IDEA of #TT shot because it was only factory loaded by one manufacturer for a few years in the 1990’s—most hunters my age have never heard of it (I guess there’s a splash of hipster in me after all).  This is why I like the 16 gauge; to realize it’s potential, you HAVE to reload for it, and even then, you have to dig for the best data.  Does it offer an advantage over any 12 ga load?  No, but that’s not the point. 

               I’ve always been very sensitive to textures, probably due to my poor eyesight.  One of the main reasons I don’t like synthetic stocks is the feel of them; there’s something so soulless about the plastic buttstock that I find hard to shake.  Obviously, I’d hunt with a plastic gun rather than not hunt at all, but I’d be missing out on the warm fuzzy I get from well worn wood.  (In which case, I’d have to temporarily transition to a different kind of hunter in order to be truly happy.  Performance Hunting is just too athletic for me, so I’d probably have to opt for the Bed-Head.  Or perhaps some kind of Sand People LARPing type thing.)  I don’t like using a plastic shell box, even though it makes a lot of sense given the aquatic nature of waterfowling.  I like the feel of reaching into the soggy carboard shell box.  I knew a guy who kept his shells in a Ziploc bag—I think I’d vomit.  Not that I have a problem with plastic in all contexts; I don’t feel the need to use wooden decoys, a cane call, or paper shotshells.  And the use of 5-gallon buckets and zip ties has a long, storied history in duck hunting. 

               And that’s the key phrase: a long, storied history.  I have an 870 Express I bought new a couple years ago as a backup gun.  A fine enough gun for what it is, yet devoid of any life (I believe it was one of the last Remington made before their melt down).  Meaning, I haven’t used it enough to build into it any memories, and being new, neither has anyone else.  On the other hand, when I use my 1949 Ithaca M37, I’m adding more pages to that gun’s scrapbook, and participating in a mystical way with the previous owner’s hunts.  Obviously, I don’t actually remember those memories, but having the object in my hand connects me to those events whatever they may have been.  I hope they were happy.  This tell of human experiences adds umami to the hunt; verily, the plinth is as important as the sculpture.  

               Old things are rad.  Some imbibe deeper from the fountain of radness then others (e.g. a box of Winchester Super Steel c. 1990 isn’t as cool as a box of Western Super X Steel c. 1980), but it’s hard to find an old hunting thing with absolutely zero appeal.  The question is at what point does a thing transition from out-of-date to vintage?  In clothing and music, it appears to be roughly a twenty-year cycle--girls are wearing flares and listening to 90’s alternative again—but the longevity of firearms (perhaps the only consumer product not engineered to fail) and the overall high average age among waterfowlers seems to push that point a bit further back.  I think forty years is a safe bet—I mean, who doesn’t want a Browning B-80?  But for me personally, the transition is The Year 2000.  Is it because I’m trying to reclaim my youth?  Or is it that my fashion sense is more inline with 18-year-old girls than with my fellow grey-haired comrades?  (Is this weird; should I feel bad about this?  Or is it another case of American youths' cultural appropriation?  Wonder how my folks felt when I started wearing tie-dye.)  Whatever it may be, I’ll giggle over a box of steel #F that most hunters wouldn’t even notice.  I wonder if my personal transition point is fixed, or will I start to collect BlackCloud boxes at some point.  We’ll see.

               Of course, I’m speaking as the Nostalgic here.  Age lays a blanket of legitimacy over anything that survived (whether or not it was a piece of crap at the time or not (In some cases, age reverses the desirability scale: which is cooler, a 1959 Thunderbird or Edsel? ). But there are other vectors of Authenticity in hunting.   The Technohunter’s gadgetry, the Gentleman Sportsman’s luxury, and the Performance Hunter’s trekking all provide the assurance that they are not mere poseurs, but are real hunters doing it right.  The ragged claws do not scuttle across the floors of silent seas in adherence to an aesthetic code—and it turns out the ragged claws are not Authentic Men. 

 

 

 

---