1700 feet per sec.

[sprigdog]

i'm just a predator, i pull the trigger and shit dies. cheapest brand on the shelf and with whatever choke is rusted in the end of the barrel.

[Simple Man]

Shot size is the same, ain't it? So a larger QUANTITY of the same size shot leaving the same size bore (whether it's got a bigger fire under its ass or a lesser fire) is where Fish is saying the faster the shot leaves (reaches) the muzzle, the faster it slows - I think.

But I'm not an engerneer.

[Saltydog235]

wow. thats a whole lot of math for a freakin dove.

Yep, sure is. Reminds me of a hunt a long time ago. A couple of guys got into a debate about birds, range and the performance of their particular brands. The old farmer we were shooting with looked in their buckets, looked at their take then looked at his bucket and take and said, "Boys I don't know which one of you has the bigger dick, the slicker draw or the most load but I do know one thing, neither one of you knows how to use what you got worth a shit." Turns out they were both shooting 12ga OU worth a couple thousand dollars and premium shells with turned out retrievers. Each had shot about 4 boxes of shells and didn't get a limit, the old farmer was shooting an old Winchester 20 ga pump, had shot 1/2 a box or so of shells and had a limit with his blue healer mix retrieving each one.

[Highstrung]

I was referring to your shoulder. But the reality is, Joe gets his shells from that same company that makes Kemen and Rio. Rio makes a fitasc load that is almost identical to the CCC and the felt recoil from both is probably 18lbs. I have on numerous occasions shot 200 or more of the CCC's and the Rio's in a single day on the parcour. However, I prefer the Kemen Suprema at 1,350 fps.

I hung up wanting to shoot sporting clays, but I enjoyed it. A few of my friends get together and shoot a couple times a year. It was another hobby (sport) that cost to much, and at the moment I have enough of them. I have shot 200 rounds in the past at his course of CCC. When it comes to dove hunts I rarely shoot over a box on a calm day. Fish, Joe is my cousin, and is a fun guy to have a drink with and talk shooting.

[Redleg]

Yep, sure is. Reminds me of a hunt a long time ago. A couple of guys got into a debate about birds, range and the performance of their particular brands. The old farmer we were shooting with looked in their buckets, looked at their take then looked at his bucket and take and said, "Boys I don't know which one of you has the bigger dick, the slicker draw or the most load but I do know one thing, neither one of you knows how to use what you got worth a shit." Turns out they were both shooting 12ga OU worth a couple thousand dollars and premium shells with turned out retrievers. Each had shot about 4 boxes of shells and didn't get a limit, the old farmer was shooting an old Winchester 20 ga pump, had shot 1/2 a box or so of shells and had a limit with his blue healer mix retrieving each one.

Until about 3 years ago, I shot skeet with a 12 Ga. 870. I'd show up to a skeet field and would catch lots of raised eyebrows and a few snide remarks from the fellas with the high dollar O/Us. "Do you know how to work that thing, Son?"
"Yessir. I know how to work it just fine." And then I'd cut their ass with my $200 pump gun. I even got an apology once from a guy for making fun of my shotgun after he saw me shoot.

[Fish]

This is absolutely not true.

As it was explained to me by another engineer, resistance slows the faster moving charge at a faster rate than it does the slower moving charge. He was also a shooter and had spent a lot of time over-thinking it...kinda like what you did.

However, according to wikipedia, drag forces act in a direction opposite to the oncoming flow velocity.[1] Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, drag forces depend on velocity.[2]

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Basically, the above caption is saying that if you have an object moving at a faster rate of speed, it will require more enegy to mainain that speed. Intuitively, I would tell you that this means the initial energy to send the lead charge out of the muzzle at 1400 fps will slow faster than the 1200 fps load.

See Randy Johnson vs. Bird

Is this a court case?

Edit: Technically the resultant force at over 200fps is greater so it will slow down at a tad quicker rate. Like the sixth decimal point, but they will not ever be at the same point at the same time. Obviously unless they hit something.

I'm thinking you're thinking more in terms of absolutes here. Obviously the pellets of two shot shells will never occupy the same position, but with regard to distance from the muzzle, the increased influence acting upon the faster load will equalize the disparity between the two loads at some point downrange.

Regardless of who is correct in this instance, you can't see a difference in lead between the two shells at any range.

[Fish]

Fish, Joe is my cousin, and is a fun guy to have a drink with and talk shooting.

Yes, I know. He's a very likable guy. He's always been gracious to me.

[Murray]

As it was explained to me by another engineer, resistance slows the faster moving charge at a faster rate than it does the slower moving charge. He was also a shooter and had spent a lot of time over-thinking it...kinda like what you did.

However, according to wikipedia, drag forces act in a direction opposite to the oncoming flow velocity.[1] Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, drag forces depend on velocity.[2]

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Basically, the above caption is saying that if you have an object moving at a faster rate of speed, it will require more enegy to mainain that speed. Intuitively, I would tell you that this means the initial energy to send the lead charge out of the muzzle at 1400 fps will slow faster than the 1200 fps load.



Is this a court case?



I'm thinking you're thinking more in terms of absolutes here. Obviously the pellets of two shot shells will never occupy the same position, but with regard to distance from the muzzle, the increased influence acting upon the faster load will equalize the disparity between the two loads at some point downrange.

Regardless of who is correct in this instance, you can't see a difference in lead between the two shells at any range.

Do you mean equalize the disparity between the drag forces or the location from the muzzle/distance downrange?

Edit: Read it agian and you mean distance from the muzzle......think your wrong...the drag forces will equalize and the rate at which they are decelerating with equalize, but the faster load will already be ahead of the slower one. Once the drag forces equalize, they will be slowing at the same rate (and this could be 2ft out the barrel or way downrange..I dunno with our working the equations)...you seem to think that the faster load will continue to decelerate at a faster rate, this is not correct

[triplebeard]

Y'all some smart soundin' mo' fo's. I'm with Sprig......

i'm just a predator, i pull the trigger and shit dies. cheapest brand on the shelf and with whatever choke is rusted in the end of the barrel.

[lil 2 sleepy]

As it was explained to me by another engineer, resistance slows the faster moving charge at a faster rate than it does the slower moving charge. He was also a shooter and had spent a lot of time over-thinking it...kinda like what you did.

However, according to wikipedia, drag forces act in a direction opposite to the oncoming flow velocity.[1] Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, drag forces depend on velocity.[2]

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Basically, the above caption is saying that if you have an object moving at a faster rate of speed, it will require more enegy to mainain that speed. Intuitively, I would tell you that this means the initial energy to send the lead charge out of the muzzle at 1400 fps will slow faster than the 1200 fps load.



Is this a court case?



I'm thinking you're thinking more in terms of absolutes here. Obviously the pellets of two shot shells will never occupy the same position, but with regard to distance from the muzzle, the increased influence acting upon the faster load will equalize the disparity between the two loads at some point downrange.

Regardless of who is correct in this instance, you can't see a difference in lead between the two shells at any range.

You are correct in the fact that the resultant wind on one lead pellet at 1400 will be greater than at 1200. The difference on a lead pellet the size we are talking here would not even be measurable. That was my reference to 6 decimal places.

With respect to distance. BWAGS is correct. A pellet shot at 1400 will never occupy the same space at the same time as one from a 1200fps. The 1400 fps pellet will go further distance wise if everything is equal. Therefore if it is initially faster and goes a further distance when it hits the ground, it can not be caught up to by the 1200 fps pellet. It will however eventually reach the same wind resultant rate, but will be further down the line and "a cole trickle car length" ahead of the 1200.

Johnson vs bird is in reference to the Youtube clip of Randy Johnson hitting a bird with a fastball. I was saying if it was thrown at 85mph then it wouldn't have been hit. The ball wouldn't be at the same point as one sent out faster. Baseball is an excellent example of velocity vs time. This is exactly why a 100mph fastball is so much harder to hit than a 60mph one.

The two pellets at different speeds will never occupy the same place at the same time or end up the same distance from the start. They will however hit the ground at the same time...

[Murray]

Simpleman brought up a good point with "size of the herd" the extra shot could have an effect on wind resistance/drag due to the drifting concept. How much effect would this have...???...but I would guess very little

[Murray]

Fish will be back shortly, he is googling, and browsing wikipedia to learn about physics

[Fish]

you seem to think that the faster load will continue to decelerate at a faster rate, this is not correct

I'm picking up what you're putting down.

[Saltydog235]

[Sportin' Woodies]

hey fags,
go buy a box of remington heavy dove loads (green and orange box) and go kill doves.

this is the most ridiculous waste of brainpower ive ever seen.
the question was gay to start with.

[Tater]

While I agree that both will kill equally well at 35 yds.

This is absolutely not true. Physics dictate that acceleration decreases at +/- 9.81m/s^2 on any item moving on the face of the planet. It is simply a vector calculus equation there after.

The only variables with shot are wind, angle, and distance. The launch speed, angle and value of gravity determines any point along the path of a trajectory. It is simply a matter of wind and reactant forces. So if you have two items of the same mass, with the same gravitational forces, and same reactant force, the only variable is velocity. An item moving initially 200 fps faster will not be in the same place at 30 yds as one moving slower.

See Randy Johnson vs. Bird

Bird would be safe if it had been Jaime Moyer pitch vs bird.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...traj.html#tra3

Edit: Technically the resultant force at over 200fps is greater so it will slow down at a tad quicker rate. Like the sixth decimal point, but they will not ever be at the same point at the same time. Obviously unless they hit something.

What physics dictates is that acceleration due to gravity is ±9.81 M/sec² NOT that an object accelerates in the opposite direction (since, after all, we ARE talking physics here and physics doesn't recognize "deceleration" only "acceleration in the opposite direction") at ±9.81 M/sec²....I appreciate your effort and your misguided example of RJ v Bird and Moyer v Bird, but in the end it's all BS. The turbulence created by the faster load exposes more of the load to frictional forces through distortion and dispersion...Fish is right...you are wrong...apologize.

[Murray]

What physics dictates is that acceleration due to gravity is ±9.81 M/sec² NOT that an object accelerates in the opposite direction (since, after all, we ARE talking physics here and physics doesn't recognize "deceleration" only "acceleration in the opposite direction") at ±9.81 M/sec²....I appreciate your effort and your misguided example of RJ v Bird and Moyer v Bird, but in the end it's all BS. The turbulence created by the faster load exposes more of the load to frictional forces through distortion and dispersion...Fish is right...you are wrong...apologize.

You silly surveyors! Deceleration is simply a term to describe acceleration in the opposite/negative direction. If Dr. Dickerson can use it, then so can I.

"The turbulence created by the faster load exposes more of the load to frictional forces through distortion and dispersion" - Correct. Until the velocities have equaized. Then they slow at the same rate. At this point the faster load will already be in front of the slower load.....geez.

[Glenn]

Every time y'all say "load" I get the giggles.

[mello_collins]

The two pellets at different speeds will never occupy the same place at the same time or end up the same distance from the start. They will however hit the ground at the same time...

If shot perpendicular to to pull of gravity.. Not the right way to say it I know. lil 2 sleepy, you are correct.

take two cars on a flat road. Same type of car, tires, etc... One is going 60mph and one comming from behind is going 80mph. As the 80mph gets even with the 60mph car both shift to neutral ( this would equate to pulling the trigger on the two shells). Which car will coast down the road further in a given amount of time. I'll put my money on the 80mph car every time. the car that started at 60mph will never catch the 80mph car.

[lil 2 sleepy]

What physics dictates is that acceleration due to gravity is ±9.81 M/sec² NOT that an object accelerates in the opposite direction (since, after all, we ARE talking physics here and physics doesn't recognize "deceleration" only "acceleration in the opposite direction") at ±9.81 M/sec²....I appreciate your effort and your misguided example of RJ v Bird and Moyer v Bird, but in the end it's all BS. The turbulence created by the faster load exposes more of the load to frictional forces through distortion and dispersion...Fish is right...you are wrong...apologize.

What are you talking about? Deceleration is acceleration in the opposite direction. You even contradicted yourself here.

Turbulence will not slow a 1400 fps load down to the speed or location of a 1200 fps load. Not ever going to happen. Never. That is why there are 2 different loads built.

And if Fish thought he was right he would have let us know already.