Low recoil Bismuth loads

I did a handful of pattern testing with some lower recoil options for bismuth today. I chose these loads because I think they will be about as weak as can reliably cycle in a gas semi auto, and I think they are still very effective on ducks. More effective than most 3 1/2" full snort steel shot loads. These are all variations of loads I pulled out of the Precision Reloading Bismuth reloading manual (not the buffered lead and bismuth). Note the second load is a buffered load. I will list the two main loads below. I claim no responsibility for the safety of such data, use at your own risk.

12ga Federal 2 3/4" Gold Medal
Federal 209A
18gr 700x
(1) .175" nitro card + (1) .125" nitro card + (1) 1/2" fiber wad + (1) .375" fiber wad
1 1/8 oz bismuth
fold crimp

1189 fps
11,130 psi

12ga Federal Gold Medal trimmed to 2 1/2"
Federal 209A
16.5 gr 700x
(1) .175" nitro card + (1) .125" nitro card + (1) .375" fiber wad + (1) "tite seal" (possibly over the shot, not clear)
1 1/8oz bismuth
PSB buffer
fold or roll crimp

1154 fps
11,440 psi


Now I chose these loads in particular because trying to figure out a plastic wad is becoming a nightmare as more and more are discontinued, or only listed with one primer, etc. Natural wads will NEVER become obsolete, and you can make them yourself. Sure you use a little more powder for the same velocity, but big deal. The changes I made to the first load were with various wads. I tried fiber, felt, cork. I tried all the spacers OVER the shot. Nothing seemed to make a huge difference, they all worked pretty well. There is one load I did that did make a difference. If you are familiar with muzzleloading shotguns, you have probably heard of the Skycheif load. If you are not, let me explain. In a muzzleloader you do powder, hard over powder wads (nitro cards), then shot, thin overshot card, then you top it all off with a big fiber wad soaked in olive oil. This sounds bizarre, but it does work. I did this in a shotgun shell, which is normally not an option, being as you normally don't have this much extra space. The exact order I did was (2) 1/8" nitro cards + (1) 1/8" felt wad, then I added shot, and topped it with (1) thin overshot card + (1) 1/2" fiber wad soaked in bear grease. Yes it is messy, but I want to try it with some beeswax added to see if this could be a viable option.

Now the second load, the buffered load, I simply turned it into a 2 3/4" load. I make no claim to the safety of such a thing. The exact wads I used were (2) 1/8" nitro cards + (1) 1/2" fiber wad + (1) 1/4" fiber wad + (1) 1/8" felt wad. I then added shot and buffer, and used a thin overshot card on top of that, and fold crimped.

Today I was firing these all out of my Winchester 1897 with 30" Full choke barrel at 40 yards. As I said, all the normal first loads did about the same, in the 67% to 68% pattern range. The Skycheif load did amazingly well, almost matching the buffered load at 77%. The best of the day was the buffered load, not a huge surprise at 81%. These are not by any means the best patterns I have gotten from bismuth, but they are perfect for what this load is. The recoil is the same as a trap load. I am shooting #4 bismuth, and I counted 176 pellets in 1 1/8 oz. From what I'm seeing, penetration of these should be good to 50 yards on ducks, which the buffered load patterns are going to be good to about that 50 yard range. I personally like to see over 100 pellets in a 30" circle for big ducks, and I like to see closer to 140-150 for smaller ducks. Lets round to 125. That makes the first load at 68% about topped out at 40 yards, which is pretty good. I'm probably going to load the first load tonight, since I don't have a lot of time, and I'll be letting my brother and dad try them out Sunday morning on ducks.

One last thing, the reason I took out the 1897, is because it always shot slightly low and left. About 1' low and left at 40 yards. I finally had enough, took the barrel off, took it to a fork in a tree, and started bending on the barrel. It sure is scary, but after a couple tries, I started to really lean on it. Finally the next shot, boom, dead perfect, hits right to the bead.

https://i.ibb.co/zbmKxHg/IMG-20211008-135913555.jpg

About that Skychief recipe; I wonder if the fiber wad is acting as a wind-breaker, preventing the shot from banging into each other during the first critical feet from the muzzle?
That would explain the high pattern percentage.

As for the plastic wads; over here they're probably doomed within a few years, except for clay target shooting on shooting ranges. We cannot use lead shot at all, and bismuth shells are very expensive - about $3,- per shell, which is roughly six times the price of a steel shot shell. Biodegradable wads (biowads) are already available, and will no doubt be mandatory before long.

There's more than one theory on why it works. My own personal feelings, with no data or evidence to back it up, is that solid wads under the shot is the key. Having a clump of compressible wads under your shot is damaging to patterns, because it disturbs the shot pattern right at the muzzle. Along with that, using a huge soaked fiber wad allows it to travel with the shot just far enough that it can fall through the pattern without causing any significant disruption.

The only way I could figure out to test this theory would be to take a muzzleloader, and shoot at a pattern board straight up. How to mount a target straight up, I don't know. Maybe a tall pine tree. Shoot a few patterns with only nitro cards over the powder, no overshot card at all. Then do the same, but do the Skycheif method of an overshot wad. If they pattern the same, then that about proves my theory.

My brother and I had a classic rainy duck hunt. Dad couldn't make it, but I had my brother shoot the 1897 with these loads. He really liked the light recoil, but he loved how well they killed. These were all small ducks, woodies and teal, but still a good day. Definitely effective to 40 yards.

I gave the gun a good cleaning, and decided to remove the butt plate. Inside the stock I found this 1930 Kansas hunting license for who appears to say Floyd Barnes of Dodge City, KS. Interesting that it just say hunting license $1. Apparently one license you could hunt anything back then. According to the serial number, this gun was built in 1929, so this was likely the very first hunt this gun was ever used on.

https://i.ibb.co/bXpfpy4/IMG-20211010-195803840.jpg

Even better, the name pulls up a 1989 obituary for a Floyd Barnes of Dodge City, born 1910, making him 20 years old in 1930.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ks/count...sfloydobit.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cap'n Morgan

As for the plastic wads; over here they're probably doomed within a few years, except for clay target shooting on shooting ranges. We cannot use lead shot at all, and bismuth shells are very expensive - about $3,- per shell, which is roughly six times the price of a steel shot shell. Biodegradable wads (biowads) are already available, and will no doubt be mandatory before long.

---

I do not use paper wads for any legal or environmental reason. I will fight any ban on plastic wads with all my ability. I like paper wads, but I understand what they are, and what they are not. There seems to be this universal thought that plastic wads were the greatest thing to ever happen to shotguns, and it isn't true. One often touted advantage is tighter patterns, and again, it is not true. I've got buckshot loads with paper wads that pattern tighter than any plastic wad load I tried. I've never seen plastic wads tighten patterns in a muzzleloader. Honestly I'm not convinced plastic wads improve patterns at all. I've seen evidence that the opposite is true. Velocity gain is another, although this one is partially true. For the most part it appears that with equal powder, a plastic wad will almost always shoot faster than a paper wad load. Things get murkier when you look at equal pressures between them. One thing I touched on first is that paper wads will never be discontinued, and they are infinitely adjustable. A final advantage that isn't necessarily an advantage, is that you can get a ton more room in the hull. You could too with a plastic wad, if all you used was a gas seal, so not technically an advantage. Even thin plastic cups take up more room in a shell than you realize. I wouldn't be surprised if you could make a reasonable 1 3/4 ounce load in a 2 3/4" hull with paper wads.

So then if paper wads are so great, why did their use reduce dramatically in the 60's? Well there is the new factor for one, but there are two other factors I've found. One is the ease of loading, or lack of. You can't improve on a one-piece plastic wad for ease of loading on a progressive. You can definitely load paper wads through a progressive, buy you would need to stage all your wads in bins, and it will never be nearly as fast. The other big drawback I find is they reduce hull life, sometimes dramatically. Those above listed bismuth loads sometimes even tear the crimp of the shell. At best, paper wads really flatten out the crimp folds. It's nothing like a plastic wad, which leaves a shell with all the crimp folds well defined. I'm not sure if this is because the paper wads put more pressure on the crimp during firing, or because without a cup, the shot is pushing hard against the shell during firing, or maybe both. When I shoot plastic wad loads with the petals removed, I often get a similar effect, but it does seem paper wads are hardest on the shells. Sometimes fouling is mentioned, but I simply can't say one way or the other. I've never had a shotgun barrel lead, and I've never seen plastic fouling I couldn't get out in 30 seconds. About 25 rounds of those bismuth loads, with no shot cup, have been fired in that 1897 between patterning and hunting. The barrel sparkles even more than it did when I pulled it from the safe.

P.S. the only "degradable" wad (there's no such thing as an actual biodegradable wad yet safe for steel shot) I ever played with was from Downrange. They are trash as far as I'm concerned. Sure they go bang, but they are clearly not as high quality as good plastic, and the worst part is if you leave them outside, they don't degrade hardly at all. I think they claim they break down in 2 years, and I think that is optimistic. From what I can tell, paper/fiber/felt ect. are the only true biodegradable wads in existence today. Biodegradable means they can be consumed by bacteria or whatever else. The ones from Downrange, and all the other's I've seen claim "biodegradable" are not at all. They are still just plastic... that degrades into tiny plastic. It will always be plastic in the ground, no different than any other plastic wad. It just becomes small bits sooner, but not that soon.

Biodegradable non-plastic wads are already here: https://bioammo.es/

https://i.imgur.com/JaJC7qB.jpg

Already back in the sixties Winchester Western had a "bottle cap" seal under the wad made from Kraft paper. I firmly believe full length wads could be made in the same way - even if steel shot are to be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cap'n Morgan

Biodegradable non-plastic wads are already here:

---

Well of course they are. The original shotgun wads were biodegradable. With rare exception, all shotgun wads were biodegradable until the 1950's-1960's. Also I'm fairly sure that link you posted is bunk. They claim 100% biodegradable shotgun hulls, but clearly have some kind of brass or steel head on them.

What I said was no true biodegradable wad that was effective with steel shot has ever been made. Wads aren't the problem, the shot is the problem. We are trying to shoehorn steel into a role it never should be used in. What we need is a shot that soft like lead and bismuth, yet costs at least remotely close to lead.

Today I decided to see just how much room is in a 2 3/4" shell, just for giggles. I poured in what I figured would be a good powder charge of smokeless, then three 1/8" nitro cards, then added #5 shot until it was at the right level to crimp. To my complete surprise, that turned out to be just a smidge shy of 2 1/4 ounces! I have no desire to load such a round ever, but it does open your eyes to just how much space is being wasted in modern ammo.

I don't have much of a desire to figure out such a massive load, and what would be safe with smokeless. For fun, I loaded a round with 80gr Fg blackpowder, two 1/8" nitro cards, and it had just the right amount of room for 1 3/4 oz of #6 lead, which I added some cream of wheat to for buffer. Tomorrow I intend to shoot it, to see just how it stacks up to the modern 1 1/2 oz turkey loads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megasupermagnum

https://i.ibb.co/bXpfpy4/IMG-20211010-195803840.jpg

---

Great shotgun info, as always. I did a quick search and I think I found Mr. Barnes.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/...d-henry-barnes

there really is something to that what you say about stiff backing under shot. ive noticed pattern differences with genuine federal 12s3 wads and the much softer copies of these wads and shot pattern tightens up using a firm cardboard disk under shot inside wad. I found this by accident trying to change load column to get better crimp on some loads. it makes much more sense to me now with reading what you have come top with in your testing.

It was pouring sideways rain, but I decided to go out and take a few shots anyway. Unfortunately I don't have anything spectacular to report. The 1 3/4 oz blackpowder loads did a fair job, but was identical to the 1 1/2 oz smokeless loads. Neither load was as good as some turkey loads I've created in the past. Because of this, I'm probably not going to pursue a heavy bismuth load. I've already got a wicked 12 gauge bismuth load, so I'm going to continue to play with the lower recoil options. I want to try the skycheif again.