Diminishing Returns?

 

When discussing the merits of various waterfowling loads, I’ve read several folks use the phrase, “Diminishing Returns.”  In general, it is dropped into the sentence without any real explanation as if it’s shorthand for a full argument the reader should just know.  Akin to an English major’s, “It calls to mind Captain Ahab and pasteboard masks, right?”  So we see folks say, “you can speed a steel pellet up all you want, but at some point, you reach the point of diminishing returns.”

The concept of Diminishing Returns—that increases of investment bring progressively smaller rates of return—is only useful in the context of reality.  Something like, “x gets you y, but x+1 gets you y+.5” doesn’t really mean anything.  The variables have to be filled in with real values in order to use it in decision making; it’s only with values that we can decide what is or isn’t an acceptable return.  So if I speed that pellet up all I want, what does it mean to reach the Unacceptable Point of Diminshing Returns?  Are we talking an investment in powder? recoil? loss of pattern performance?   And what is my return on that investment?  Would a gain of 2.5 yards be worth the price of 3 ft/lbs extra recoil?  What about 15 ft/lbs?    

Obviously, this is COMPLETELY dependant on the person.  How much recoil do you want to handle?  How much money do you have?  How many days can you hunt?  How many ducks are in your flyway?

So can we define the undefinable?  Well, if we learned anything from PBS’s Square One, it’s that when in doubt, use a chart.  This one lists values for “standard” factory 12 ga loadings of #BBB shot (this size may not be available in all loadings obviously).  I chose this shot size arbitrarily, but all I say below would apply to any other size.  The recoil is calculated for a 7.5# gun, and the range is for 2.25” penetration at 32°F and sea level.

Load	Yardage for 2.25” penetration	In-shell Pellet count	pattern percentage needed for 50 pellets	Recoil in 7.5 lb gun	Cost, viz grains of powder
A: 1.125 oz @ 1400	48.7	68	73.5%	30.5	32
B: 1.125 oz @ 1550	51.3	68	73.5%	33.5	38
C: 1.25 oz @ 1300	45.1	76	65.8%	31.73	29?
D: 1.25 oz @ 1400	48.7	76	65.8%	36.26	34
E: 1.375 oz @ 1300	45.1	83	60.2%	37.16	32
B: 1.375 oz @ 1550	51.3	83	60.2%	51.2	40?
C: 1.5 oz @ 1500	52.1	91	54.9%	55.91	40?
D: 1.5625 oz @ 1300	45.1	95	52.6%	46.1	35

 

Yardage:

Going from 1300 fps to 1550 fps gains you an extra 6.2 yards, a 13.7% increase.  Six yards may not seem like much--which is why it’s so important!  You have a load that has penetration at 45 yards.  A Goose flies by at about 45 yards.  Are you SURE that goose is passing at 45 yards and not 48 yards?  Or looked at another way, the 1300 fps load has 2.43” of penetration at 40 yards.  The 1550 fps load has 2.75” of penetration at the same distance, a 13.2% increase.  What if the goose doesn’t provide the most desirable angle?  To those who only shoot “in your face” birds, what about a clearly hit, but not stopping bird?  Do you not shoot at sailers that have crossed out of the “in you face” territory?  Is that extra 13% in range worth the increased recoil, or powder?  Or if we keep the powder the same, is it worth a decrease in pellet count?

Pellet count:

There are two numbers here to talk about: the in-shell count and the in-pattern count.  Obviously, the two are connected, since the later is a portion of the former.  Which would be easier to achieve a pattern of 50 pellets (the minimum to cleanly take a goose): a load with 60 in-shell pellets, or one with 75?  The first would require a choke that would produce an 83% pattern, whereas the second only needs a 67% pattern.  I own several chokes that will produce 67% or better patterns with #BBB, but I’d have to spend a lot more fiddling around time to get 83%.  And the same is true of smaller shot.  More pellets in the shell makes it easier to get more pellets in the circle.  But more pellets come at the cost of either more recoil, or less penetration. 

Recoil:

Felt recoil is dependent on a host of things, some of which are quantifiable (like gun weight), and some of which are not (like excitement level).  How much is too much is completely up to the shooter.  And how hard a line is that threshold?  You may want a soft shooter for the dove field, but are you willing to take an extra thumping for the one or two shots it’ll take to fill a swan tag?  I have shot some loads that actually hurt me, and I’d only ever use again in self-defense, but there’s a lot of space between those and my “normal” duck loads. 

Cost:

Cost in dollars, or cost in grains?  With a finite resource like Alliant Steel, does it make sense to think of value in dollar terms since it is essentially an irreplaceable resource?  As for myself, I’m not as interested in bang for my buck as bang for my grain. 

Powder at $50/pound = $0.0071/grain

Grains per shell	Cost per shell	Cost per 25	Rounds per pound
32	$0.2286	$5.72	218.8
35	$0.2500	$6.25	200
38	$0.2714	$6.79	184.2
41	$0.2929	$7.32	170.7

 

Increasing the cost of a box by a dollar seems trivial—that’s only $10 more a CASE.  However, decreasing the number of loads I can make with a pound of powder from 218 to 184 is far more attention grabbing.  (And though it isn’t in short supply, the same can be said for shot to a lesser extent.) 

Now, one man may be setting on 20 pounds of Alliant Steel, and to him the utility of the grain is much lower then the man carefully husbanding a half pound of powder.  If you’re powder rich, burning up a few extra grains doesn’t really cost you anything; but if your powder poor, every grain has a name. 

And this is the whole crux of the issue.  All the chart does for us is… nothing.  Because I can’t define the utility of a grain or yard, or ft/lb, or pellet for you.  I can for me, but you might have a completely different matrix your wired into.  For me, I get so few chances, I’m thinking about installing a Flakturm on the back of my property to make the most of an unlikely passing flock of geese—recoil and amount of powder used don’t matter since, most likely, I won’t be shooting anyway.