View Single Post
Old November 22, 2012, 07:55 PM   #42
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
In the same light, great strides have been made in buckshot ammunition. Nineteen sixty three saw a giant leap to tighter patterns with the introduction of granulated buffer, shot collars and a reduction in traditional buckshot pellet diameters. (1)The early 1980s introduced shot cups and spiral pellet stacking for better buckshot pattern response to choke. (2)This along with specialty choke tubes doubled the effective buckshot range. Just past the start of the 21st century air braking wad technology gave the cylinder and improved cylinder bore LE shotguns tight controled patterns for the first time. Heavier than lead non-toxic shot developments for waterfowl were extended to buckshot for greater penetration. (3)The same wad technologies and powder developments that allowed ultra hard non-toxic shot use also opened a door to larger pellets and tighter patterning buckshot loads than ever before.
(1)What "...reduction in traditional buckshot pellet diameters...", was made? Link please.
(2)How about a link for this one: "...doubled the effective buckshot range..." Doubled the effective range???
(3) How did "... The same wad technologies and powder developments that allowed ultra hard non-toxic shot use also opened a door to larger pellets and tighter patterning buckshot loads than ever before...", result in "larger pellets? A link for this also please. It seems, according to you, the buckshot pellets got smaller, now they have gotten bigger? come now, double-ought is still double-ought. Number four buck is still number four at .24 of an inch. The sizes have not changed.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04312 seconds with 7 queries