Skychief Load field test

[BrownBear]

:haha: Between my 20 and 12, powder charges vary from 60 grains of 3f to 80 grains of 2f.

Now we're talking. Those are really "light" charges behind such heavy loads of shot, reminiscent of my own approach to shot loads.

Brings me back to my doughnut theory. I'm betting those holey patterns were due to too much powder rather than the fiber wads.

 

[Skychief]

I'll add that my smoothbores, no matter the powder or shot loads, shoot donut hole patterns when using the conventional loading of the cushion wad under the shot.

That fact spurred me on to try anything that might make the donut hole disappear. I found success by using no cushion wad at all, just a hard card under the shot. The donut holes disappeared. Not a problem if you don't mind swabbing the bore now and then, or, if you only expect a shot or two at most(hunting).

Never satisfied, I went looking for ways of making denser patterns for turkey and squirrel hunting.

My experimenting led to the "Skychief Special" :haha: loading. I've found nothing that shoots tighter, denser patterns with "conventional" components (wads, cards). The squirrels and turkeys would testify, if they could. :wink:

Best regards, Skychief

 

[George]

Skychief, your Special Load is a puzzle to me. It defies logic, and that always makes me nervous. This thread had me thinking about it, what could possibly be the mechanism of an improvement because of a heavy weight on top of the load. Something triggered a memory which might be related, probably is not. A coincidence, in all likelihood, but I thought I’d mention it.

Two or three years ago I was running some trials with buck and ball in my 20 gauge smoothbore, using tow for wadding...historic, you know. I was loading 3-6-9 swan shot on top of the ball and having very poor luck getting any patterns either tight or repeatable. I had 2-3 runs at it over several days, and had just about given up when I recalled a photo recently posted of an original Brown Bess recovered from a sunken ship, I think, and X-rayed. It was still loaded with buck and ball, but the buck were under the ball, not over it. I decided to try that before I quit. Voila! Night and day. Consistent small groups almost every shot, some remarkably so. Here are a couple of typical targets.

On this one, the balls of both shots went through the same hole, but the 3 swan of #1, over the ball, were widely scattered, while the 3 of shot #2, under the ball, made a 4” group around it.


On this one, shot #2, with 3 swan under, made a 2” group with 2 swan touching the ball, while shot #3, with 6 swan over, had the ball in the bull but 4 of the 6 swan were not even on the paper.


As I said, small chance there is any relation in the mechanisms, but both your Special Load and my buck and ball trials had good results with the heavy stuff up front...it does make me wonder. :hmm:

Spence

 

[Britsmoothy]

I remember that Spence to.

I have pondered this often and found improvement myself using skychiefs findings with exception of my Bess that in which won't do doodle unless loaded with large volumes of shot and powder.

I can imagine a heavy wad clearing the shot column front when loaded last, it having some mass itself. It deacellerates slower than a thin card!
Thin cards stop almost instantly (relatively), themselves becoming an obstacle!
Conventionally loaded the shot load is being rammed from behind with a piston of compressed fibres with huge volumes of high pressure gas behind it! It does often conspire to cause grief in my limited humble opinion!

 

[Skychief]

Spence and Britsmoothy, excellent posts!

If I had read of the buck and ball trials, Spence, I had forgotten them. Related to the load being discussed? I don't know, but remarkable either way! What was the title of the thread regarding your buck and ball shooting? :hmm: I'm thinking it could be a great load for coyote in the heavy brush.

I know that I have read that a bumble bee by all rights, should not be able to fly, but the bumble bee has never read this. :idunno:

Britsmoothy, I really think that you bring up some great thinking above. I've said it before and will add it here......

I think that the heavy wad out front must create a vacuum of sorts behind it, however slight as it may be. My thinking is that some of the shot has to be attracted to this vacuum. In turn, these pellets create a denser pattern downrange.

Thoughts guys?

I'm just tickled that guys like Roger have tried the load and found the same success with it that I have. :thumbsup:

Let me say this. I can't say for sure why it does as it does. Shucks, I ain't no rock-it scienteest! :haha:

Best regards guys, Skychief

 

[BrownBear]

Let me say this. I can't say for sure why it does as it does. Shucks, I ain't no rock-it scienteest! :haha:

I'm going to speculate, but it would take some serious high speed photography to confirm or refute the thought.

Intuitively the ball in buck-and-ball stays in front and doesn't disrupt the pattern of the buck, simply because it doesn't slow as fast as the smaller buck. With the ball below, it passes through the pattern of buck as the smaller shot slows, disrupting their flight.

Related (here's the real speculation), if the fiber wad starts out in front, it stays there long enough for the shot below to do some serious spreading before falling back through the pattern, limiting disruption. Meanwhile a wad below that's driven too fast (my contention) is driven through the cluster of small shot before the cluster has opened much at all. Slower loads (less powder relative to shot) don't have the oomph to push the wad through the still-small shot cloud.

Idle ponder driven by the conundrum.

 

[George]

Meanwhile a wad below that's driven too fast (my contention) is driven through the cluster of small shot before the cluster has opened much at all. Slower loads (less powder relative to shot) don't have the oomph to push the wad through the still-small shot cloud.

This idea of the wad being driven through the shot is a common one which is put forward whenever the subject of doughnut holes comes up. I do not think ii's possible. When the gun is fired, all the wads and shot travel up the bore as a single object, can't do otherwise because it's being pushed from behind by tremendous pressure. It cannot separate in the bore. When that object exits the muzzle, all pressure from behind stops suddenly, so there is then no mechanism by which the wad can be pushed any longer. Quite the contrary, since the wads are always lighter and of greater wind resistance than the shot, and all the force on them is now a strong wind from the front, the wads have to slow quicker than the shot, So, they can't move up through the shot, must fall behind. Or so it seems to me.

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

Meanwhile a wad below that's driven too fast (my contention) is driven through the cluster of small shot before the cluster has opened much at all. Slower loads (less powder relative to shot) don't have the oomph to push the wad through the still-small shot cloud.

This idea of the wad being driven through the shot is a common one which is put forward whenever the subject of doughnut holes comes up. I do not think ii's possible. When the gun is fired, all the wads and shot travel up the bore as a single object, can't do otherwise because it's being pushed from behind by tremendous pressure. It cannot separate in the bore. When that object exits the muzzle, all pressure from behind stops suddenly, so there is then no mechanism by which the wad can be pushed any longer. Quite the contrary, since the wads are always lighter and of greater wind resistance than the shot, and all the force on them is now a strong wind from the front, the wads have to slow quicker than the shot, So, they can't move up through the shot, must fall behind. Or so it seems to me.

Spence

That's zackly my take on it, but I'm trying to allow leeway for folks believing the wad blow-through process. Just not worth arguing, and I don't see anyone doing the high speed photography to settle it.

I've never actually seen a "doughnut" pattern, but I do see patterns enlarge as powder charges are increased relative to shot charges. I still lean toward Skychief's topper wad either being pushed to the side or not passing back through the shot cloud until it's progressed far enough from the muzzle so pattern disruption is not noticeable. Again, high speed photography required to clarify.

 

[George]

Just not worth arguing, and I don't see anyone doing the high speed photography to settle it.

Agreed, and I didn't mean to start that argument again. Rather, to use that to possibly give us some ideas as to what Skychief's load is doing. Those two situations must surely be related.

I still lean toward Skychief's topper wad either being pushed to the side or not passing back through the shot cloud until it's progressed far enough from the muzzle so pattern disruption is not noticeable.

A possibility I've considered is that the shot are drafting on the cushion wad the way race cars do. If they stay tucked in behind and shielded from the wind by the wad for a while rather than starting to spread the instant they leave muzzle, the pattern would be tighter. Just like the fact that a deviation from the line of sight by a ball causes a bigger miss if it happens close to the muzzle than if it happens closer to the target. Just plain geometry. And not magic, that's important to say. :haha:

Spence

 

[George]

That would also explain why Skychief finds that heavier wads do a better job. They would resist the wind and shield the shot for a bit longer because of their weight.

Spnce

 

[BrownBear]

I still lean toward Skychief's topper wad either being pushed to the side or not passing back through the shot cloud until it's progressed far enough from the muzzle so pattern disruption is not noticeable.

A possibility I've considered is that the shot are drafting on the cushion wad the way race cars do. If they stay tucked in behind and shielded from the wind by the wad for a while rather than starting to spread the instant they leave muzzle, the pattern would be tighter.

Ohhhhh.... What a good thought. I hadn't even considered drafting, but it makes more sense than anything my addled brain has stirred up so far.

Lot of addling going on in my grain box as a matter of fact, without some serious science and photography to sort it.

 

[hanshi]

I like this thread. Never before have I even considered using an "upside down" load to get tighter patterns. I will not bother to over analyze these theories. The truth will be in the results; I am sure. This certainly gives me something to experiment with.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Meanwhile a wad below that's driven too fast (my contention) is driven through the cluster of small shot before the cluster has opened much at all. Slower loads (less powder relative to shot) don't have the oomph to push the wad through the still-small shot cloud.

This idea of the wad being driven through the shot is a common one which is put forward whenever the subject of doughnut holes comes up. I do not think ii's possible. When the gun is fired, all the wads and shot travel up the bore as a single object, can't do otherwise because it's being pushed from behind by tremendous pressure. It cannot separate in the bore. When that object exits the muzzle, all pressure from behind stops suddenly, so there is then no mechanism by which the wad can be pushed any longer. Quite the contrary, since the wads are always lighter and of greater wind resistance than the shot, and all the force on them is now a strong wind from the front, the wads have to slow quicker than the shot, So, they can't move up through the shot, must fall behind. Or so it seems to me.

Spence

Spence dear friend you do kinetic energy a dis service!

The wad is not driven through the shot, correct.
However, there is a moment at the muzzle when the shot is free and the wad is not !!!
It is that minute moment when the rear of the shot gets a nudge, theory, yes.
Let's not forget how shot can be steered simply by shortening a portion of a barrels muzzle.
In other words, very little influence in this hi energy environment can have dramatic effects!

I too do not believe a conventional wad blows through a shot charge. I don't believe that because I don't believe that is necessary to create a doughnut pattern!

I also believe the main drive for choking barrels in the first place was to overcome doughnutting but that is just a hunch.

B.

 

[azmntman]

I think I posted before that when I got my 1st bp shotgun and wads I had no idea what to do. Logic (for me) said the thin wad to separate the shot/powder and the heavier wad needed to keep it all tight. So i began loading backwards (like sky). Worked great, never had a donut pattern. Now I load "correct" and see way wider groups. So backwards is best :youcrazy: Not till I landed here did I realize i was loading backwards. :idunno:

 

[BrownBear]

The truth will be in the results; I am sure. This certainly gives me something to experiment with.

Amen. Ain't it fun!

 

[George]

However, there is a moment at the muzzle when the shot is free and the wad is not !!!
It is that minute moment when the rear of the shot gets a nudge, theory, yes.
Let's not forget how shot can be steered simply by shortening a portion of a barrels muzzle.
In other words, very little influence in this hi energy environment can have dramatic effects!

Yeah, it's those nagging little details which make it a puzzle. You could be right, but I've always doubted that would really give only the wad enough of a nudge...if any.. to be a factor.

Spence

 

[smoothshooter]

Question:
Are the cushion wads we are talking about the thick felt wads that are soft, or the Circle Fly - type wads that are made out of insulation board?

Could be an important difference.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Running behind here due to illness and broke car but should have read all this earlier. I had found buck on bottom of 'buck & ball' some years ago playing with it for fun. Thought I'd commented on it previously, but would't be the first time 'thinking' got me in trouble. I agree totally with Spence on the wad making doughnut holes in shot pattern...didn't make sense to me either and playing around over the years doesn't seem to confirm it's actually happening. In my mind it's pressure blow by that causes many of life's problems with muzzleloading.

I've posted several times about the tests we did back in the late 60's when I worked out at NASA and we used their high-speed cameras to prove or disprove the old "does the patch seal the bore" question. In short, there was NO combo of ball diameter and patch thickness that didn't allow smoke to show at the muzzle before the ball...NOT ONE! I'm talking about combos so tight we felt safer removing the barrel from the stock to prevent damage to the wrist from heavy hammering of load! We did some seriously goofy combos but nothing kept gas and smoke blow-by from showing at the muzzle first. If that is true, then there certainly not going to be any shot load that's unaffected by pressure blow-by. To what extent, I can't say but my money would go there.

 

[Zonie]

All I have to say is, one of these days, some guy at Winchester, Remington or one of the other companies that make shot shells is going to read this post and "borrow" the idea.

They will come out with a design that loads a heavy wad over the top of their shot load and sell it as the best thing that happened to shotgunning since the invention of the choke.

I can see the ad's now:

TURN YOUR CYLINDER BORE SHOTGUN INTO A LONG RANGE BIRD GUN NOW! OUT NEW "REACH OUT" CARTRIDGES WILL DELIVER FULL CHOKE PATTERNS OUT OF YOUR DEER GUN.

Too bad Skychief won't be getting any of the profits from his load.

 

[George]

There are different kinds of profit, and Skychief is reaping a variety which is certain to please him.

Your Honor, three more witnesses for the prosecution, if you please. May it be entered into the record that they were taken today with a percussion 12 gauge loaded with the magical Skychief Special, and are here to testify as to its effectiveness.



Spence