texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
coloradochris, Trout killa, loftisp, AKkav, KJ3
64354 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 90,140
stxranchman 53,730
bill oxner 49,745
RKHarm24 44,577
rifleman 44,411
BMD 41,009
SnakeWrangler 39,516
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,376
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics417,809
Posts6,074,469
Members64,354
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
1700 fps VS 1200fps #6942178
11/01/17 04:42 PM
11/01/17 04:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
1700 fps VS 1200 fps if a duck is flying at 35yds crossing is the lead the same? Its going to be interesting to hear what y'all have to say. Oh and by the way 1700 fps is not good for your gun.


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942197
11/01/17 04:56 PM
11/01/17 04:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 627
Terrell,TX
N
Nitro27 Offline
Tracker
Nitro27  Offline
Tracker
N

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 627
Terrell,TX
not sure about that but I have less cripples with 1350 vs 1200

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942200
11/01/17 04:57 PM
11/01/17 04:57 PM
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 581
N
nate33 Online content
Tracker
nate33  Online Content
Tracker
N

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 581
shoot the same shells and same gun at all times --------- constantly changing guns and shells is why most people hit 4 ducks with a box of shells instead of 20.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: nate33] #6942210
11/01/17 05:04 PM
11/01/17 05:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 421
N Texas
E
Esh and Hattie Offline
Bird Dog
Esh and Hattie  Offline
Bird Dog
E

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 421
N Texas
I would say people trying to "calculate lead" based on the fps shell they have in at the time on any range shot is a great way to miss a lot. Shoot with your eyes not with a calculator.

For the math saavy i'm sure the difference is inches at most.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: Esh and Hattie] #6942224
11/01/17 05:13 PM
11/01/17 05:13 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
Originally Posted By: Esh and Hattie
I would say people trying to "calculate lead" based on the fps shell they have in at the time on any range shot is a great way to miss a lot. Shoot with your eyes not with a calculator.

For the math saavy i'm sure the difference is inches at most.
so winner winner chicken dinner. I was buying some shells and saw the 1700fps on a box of hyper Sonics that makes no sense to me. They advertise that with 1700 fps your lead is less and since most misses are behind the bird this will make up the difference. LOL


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942552
11/01/17 08:46 PM
11/01/17 08:46 PM
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 228
O
Ojai Hunter Offline
Woodsman
Ojai Hunter  Offline
Woodsman
O

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 228
Believe it or not, these new generation ducks are so pellet savvy, that they can sense the instant you pull the trigger what the FPS is and can adjust their flying speed in short burst sand escape injury.

Similar to the way a major league batter can sense a pitched balls speed and swing at precisely the speed needed to connect, only in reverse.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942595
11/01/17 09:20 PM
11/01/17 09:20 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,439
dfw
F
First_Chance Offline
Veteran Tracker
First_Chance  Offline
Veteran Tracker
F

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,439
dfw
ok, so I did the math on this... mainly just because its a much more drastic difference than you would usually see between loads like clay shooting (which I do a lot of).
35 yards is 105 ft. I'm also assuming the duck is traveling at 50mph on a 90 deg passing shot, which is a good average according to the internet.

it takes the front of the 1700 fps shot string .0618 sec to travel the 105 ft
it takes the front of the 1200 fps shot string .0875 sec to travel the 105 ft
50 mph is around 73fps so:

1700 fps needs 4.5 feet of lead for the first pellet to hit the duck on the nose
1200 fps needs 6.38 feet of lead, pellet to nose

That amounts to a 1.88 ft difference.
Almost 2 feet of lead difference so yes it does matter.

Perceived lead is different for everyone and the statement above is correct that once you start calculating lead, you might as well bring two extra boxes of shells with you!

Personally, i shoot my best scores & birds overall, regardless of target speed and distance with 1200 fps shells as that is what my brain "sees". I always shoot 1200 fps out of all my shotguns and calibers.
Does it matter going from 1150 to 1350... to me it does and I usually feel like I miss 3-4 targets out of 100 using a different loads, especially on longer targets.

Some may call BS... but perceived lead is real. Try asking 5 guys "how much lead" on the same target and you'll get 2 or 3 different answers. some guys will tell you they don't see lead at all, they just shoot the target. In that case they are still leading because it would be impossible to break a passer without it, it's just that the brain builds it in automatically.



Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942634
11/01/17 10:10 PM
11/01/17 10:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
Sniper John Offline
gumshoe
Sniper John  Offline
gumshoe

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
There are more variables than speed that would figure into the difference in impact. Bore diameter and condition, Shot type weight and diameter or area of shot, Shot cup design, Shotshell design and crimp, primer used, length of barrel, forcing cone, backbored barrel or no, shot string created by choke design, angle of flight, speed of bird, distance of shot related to kinetic energy of shot, even anticipated recoil. All factors combined as equal as possible between those two shells other than speed, IMHO theoretically your probably talking just a few inches lead difference at say 30-40 yards. Think too when you swing your shotgun on a moving target, the speed of your barrel swing on that target is going come close to matching the speed of the target just before you follow through on the shot no matter how fast your target is flying. If your taking the time to consciously figure in all those factors before the shot, you already missed.

When you were a kid and wanted to hit your sister with a snowball you did not consciously calculate how fast she was running, how far away she was, how heavy your snowball was, and how fast to throw the snowball. Yet when you threw the snowball at her I bet you still hit her every time. Same for your shotgun on a passing bird. At this point using good shooting form and follow through, let experience and instinct work for you, not math. I think the original thought of loading a faster shotshell for steel shot was for gaining a greater kinetic energy for distance and knockdown. Thus allowing one to use a smaller shot with more dense pattern that retains the same knockdown as a slower larger shot. But then too notice you begin to lose any gain with downrange energy at some point especially with smaller shot. Notice the figures on the 1800 fps line below.

Chart from Kent. Distance when steel shot has dropped to 575 fps minimum penetration velocity.

Shot.size.6..5..4..3..2..1..B..BB.BBB.T
1450 fps 43 47 51 55 58 62 65 70 73 77
1500 fps 44 48 52 56 59 64 68 71 75 79
1550 fps 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
1600 fps 46 50 54 58 62 66 71 75 78 82
1650 fps 47 51 55 59 63 67 72 76 80 84
1700 fps 47 51 56 60 64 68 73 77 81 86
1750 fps 47 51 56 60 64 68 73 77 81 86
1800 fps 47 51 56 60 64 68 73 77 81 86

FPS for lead is mostly marketing hype IMO.



Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942636
11/01/17 10:11 PM
11/01/17 10:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
First_Chance that is some great info. I also shoot a lot if sporting clays and I also reload at 1200fps , but no matter what speed shell at any distance and no matter how fast the target is moving I never think about how much lead I will need.


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942643
11/01/17 10:17 PM
11/01/17 10:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
Z
ZachW Offline
Woodsman
ZachW  Offline
Woodsman
Z

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
This is really interesting, I've never thought much about the difference in lead, but it's meaningful.

Calculating time of flight you have to account for the change in velocity over the distance traveled, and steel pellets slow considerably over normal shooting distances, so the lead difference is less than the different in 4.5 and 6.38 feet.

Based on the shot velocity and penetration table below I found on a different forum, I think the right two columns are closer to the actual lead distances at 1400 and 1700 fps with #3 steel and a duck traveling at 30mph 90 feet away.





So, using the same shell every time actually makes a difference.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942652
11/01/17 10:24 PM
11/01/17 10:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
This thread was for first time hunters or guys who are having problems shooting or killing birds, that they should not worry about there how fast the shells they are shooting no matter how close or far there target is


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: Sniper John] #6942655
11/01/17 10:27 PM
11/01/17 10:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
Z
ZachW Offline
Woodsman
ZachW  Offline
Woodsman
Z

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
Originally Posted By: Sniper John
But then too notice you begin to lose any gain with downrange energy at some point especially with smaller shot.


Exactly. And shot that starts out faster will have a greater difference in velocity at target than slower shot, so that 500 fps difference at the muzzle may only be a 100 fps difference at the target depending on distance and shot size.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942657
11/01/17 10:29 PM
11/01/17 10:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
Also the length of your shot string is not being taken into effect


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942660
11/01/17 10:32 PM
11/01/17 10:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
Sniper John Offline
gumshoe
Sniper John  Offline
gumshoe

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
Originally Posted By: bentman
This thread was for first time hunters or guys who are having problems shooting or killing birds, that they should not worry about there how fast the shells they are shooting no matter how close or far there target is



Correct, at typical duck hunting distances if they are properly swinging the barrel to the speed of the bird for a follow through shot the difference is too small to notice with a 30 inch shot pattern.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942662
11/01/17 10:33 PM
11/01/17 10:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
Z
ZachW Offline
Woodsman
ZachW  Offline
Woodsman
Z

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 234
Texas, TX
Say what you want. Computer, rangefinder, anemometer, and a fancy spreadsheet are critical hunting items. Never leave home without them. Better take a barometer too to be safe.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: ZachW] #6942668
11/01/17 10:41 PM
11/01/17 10:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
Sniper John Offline
gumshoe
Sniper John  Offline
gumshoe

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,895
North Texas
Originally Posted By: ZachW
Originally Posted By: Sniper John
But then too notice you begin to lose any gain with downrange energy at some point especially with smaller shot.


Exactly. And shot that starts out faster will have a greater difference in velocity at target than slower shot, so that 500 fps difference at the muzzle may only be a 100 fps difference at the target depending on distance and shot size.


And shot diameter/area. I think the term might be aerodynamic resistance. You can really see or should say hear it when shooting large diameter shot long distances at geese on a foggy morning.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942705
11/01/17 11:20 PM
11/01/17 11:20 PM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 892
Mesquite
B
BDB Offline
Tracker
BDB  Offline
Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 892
Mesquite
Dam you guys are confusing me scratch

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6942948
11/02/17 02:10 AM
11/02/17 02:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 14
Lubbock
B
BWC Offline
Light Foot
BWC  Offline
Light Foot
B

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 14
Lubbock
Pick a shell that patterns good and stick with it. You will miss more birds if you use different shells. Doesn't matter if they are 1100 or 1700 fps. Getting use to what you are shooting is the most important thing.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943017
11/02/17 02:46 AM
11/02/17 02:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,703
Lone Oak
Exbellicus Offline
Pro Tracker
Exbellicus  Offline
Pro Tracker

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,703
Lone Oak
Originally Posted By: bentman
Also the length of your shot string is not being taken into effect


Yup the fps calculations and pattern is nice on paper but you've gotta think about shot string also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn3jjIpHpOU

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943078
11/02/17 03:24 AM
11/02/17 03:24 AM
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 581
N
nate33 Online content
Tracker
nate33  Online Content
Tracker
N

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 581
So you all are basically saying,, let them land, and wait till they stop swimming before you shoot ???

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943125
11/02/17 04:08 AM
11/02/17 04:08 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
B
bentman Offline OP
Pro Tracker
bentman  Offline OP
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,395
tx
Astros Astros Astros


If it bleeds I can KILL IT
Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943189
11/02/17 08:57 AM
11/02/17 08:57 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 284
J
jnd59 Offline
Bird Dog
jnd59  Offline
Bird Dog
J

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 284
My observations are if you are buying speed for distance you won't get your monies worth. By the time pellets get to 40 yards the difference is negligible. Now, speed helps within the kill zone as you can use smaller shot for a more dense pattern. Also, go Astros.

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: BDB] #6943302
11/02/17 12:16 PM
11/02/17 12:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,433
Jack County
B
Bass&More Offline
Pro Tracker
Bass&More  Offline
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,433
Jack County
Originally Posted By: BDB
Dam you guys are confusing me scratch



Hang in there BDB, I wait till they land and eliminate the whole problem. Science trout peep

Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943597
11/02/17 03:28 PM
11/02/17 03:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,592
The Great State
L
LarryCopper Offline
Extreme Tracker
LarryCopper  Offline
Extreme Tracker
L

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,592
The Great State
To summarize:
- Lots of variables, don't overthink it.
- For newbies, faster loads can help cuz they tend to shoot behind the target.
- Old pharts (like me) that have been shooting the same shells for years ought not change. Old dog, new trick thing.
- Astros should send the Rangers a big thank Yu package for the two World Series games he botched.
- Science can hurt your head.


Re: 1700 fps VS 1200fps [Re: bentman] #6943962
11/02/17 07:39 PM
11/02/17 07:39 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,377
TX
A
Aggieduck Offline
Veteran Tracker
Aggieduck  Offline
Veteran Tracker
A

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,377
TX
Speed kills and high speed shells have better penetration. While lead time or distance might be slight as 1 foot of lead at bird of 35 yards is very minimal at aim point.


Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread


© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
UBB.threads™ 7.6.2