Did I explain this right?

[crow]

Since your the one that first brought up physics tell me what part of these numbers are not a fact?
As for the other guy saying he thinks he'd have a better chance of killing something to eat  with TSS with a 20 gauge  instead of  a 12 gauge. I'd like to know what you did before tss just walk around the woods and hope for some magic shot shell to show up and defy the laws of physics and common sense so you could finally kill something? Lol








From crow, this post below is mine
What I did before TSS was kill game with lead pellets (for over 50years), from doves to deer, including waterfowl before the lead ban. With .410's, 20's and 12gauges.

I have enough practical experience with lead to know it kills very good, never said it didn't. I also have seen enough results with TSS that I will stick with my earlier post and will take a 20 ga with TSS over a 3" 12 ga with lead for pure killing results, not just holes in paper.


Do you have any practical experience yourself with TSS to back up what your posting or just going by a couple of gobblers you seen shot (maybe with the edge of the pattern, or the energy charts you post.

charts have their place but paper calculations don't tell the whole real world story. In the case of TSS penetration and killing performance on game is better than what ballistic gel shows. or what the KPY program calculates it will be in gel.

[LaLongbeard]

I've read your same circular unfounded lead theories in other TSS threads from like two years ago.




[/quote]

You have not read any arguments about TSS from 2 years ago from me that's in your head. You also are still confused about the meaning of the words mass, density and apparently circular and single lol
You quoted my original post saying it was silly to say TSS loads are slower. I then showed you that unless you specifically go looking for a slower  lead or HVY turkey load the lead and HVY will be faster. Then you got yourself twisted up on mass, density the momentum formula etc. The reason for the #5 to #9 comparison is because that is what is continually used in the sales pitch saying the TSS #9 is as heavy as a lead #5, it is not and that was my original point. The fact that you have agreed TSS  #9 is 1/2 the weight of a lead #5 is a break thru for you lol. If you remember you quoted that same statement with a laughing emoji previously or maybe you forgot?

[LaLongbeard]

but each one of those tiny holes was made by a pellet half as heavy as a lead or HVY 5 going slower.

??

[ChesterCopperpot]

This thread turned into a Facebook squabble. But yes, Sir-diealot, I think a box of TSS would make a wonderful sportsman giveaway. I'd love to win a box of 20ga #9.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LaLongbeard]

Since your the one that first brought up physics tell me what part of these numbers are not a fact?
As for the other guy saying he thinks he'd have a better chance of killing something to eat  with TSS with a 20 gauge  instead of  a 12 gauge. I'd like to know what you did before tss just walk around the woods and hope for some magic shot shell to show up and defy the laws of physics and common sense so you could finally kill something? Lol








From crow, this post below is mine
What I did before TSS was kill game with lead pellets (for over 50years), from doves to deer, including waterfowl before the lead ban. With .410's, 20's and 12gauges.

I have enough practical experience with lead to know it kills very good, never said it didn't. I also have seen enough results with TSS that I will stick with my earlier post and will take a 20 ga with TSS over a 3" 12 ga with lead for pure killing results, not just holes in paper.


Do you have any practical experience yourself with TSS to back up what your posting or just going by a couple of gobblers you seen shot (maybe with the edge of the pattern, or the energy charts you post.

charts have their place but paper calculations don't tell the whole real world story. In the case of TSS penetration and killing performance on game is better than what ballistic gel shows. or what the KPY program calculates it will be in gel.

Non of what I posted came from any chart you can figure the kinetic energy yourself it's not hard you don't need any KPY program but you do have to know the weight of the shot. The whole point of the numbers was to refute the TSS #9 having more energy than a lead # 5 do the math yourself if you don't believe it. If however you believe TSS defies the "physics" Pa originally brought up that's on you. If you believe TSS has some magic abilities that can't be quantified by physics but just "IS" better that's on you as well lol.
     All I've seen is a lot of gibberish with the word fact written behind it. I've seen no actual facts that back up the more energy or heavier shot claims my original post stated. Clearly if you've read all this you've seen the actual energy numbers and true weight comparisons of TSS to lead or heavy shot and that was the intended point. Maybe even learned something about the difference between mass and density lol. I don't care what you shoot but if it's TSS #9s it ain't got more energy than the lead I'm shooting it ain't heavier and what happens when it's shot into jello at extreme distances means nothing to me.
   
       

[crow]

This thread turned into a Facebook squabble. But yes, Sir-diealot, I think a box of TSS would make a wonderful sportsman giveaway. I'd love to win a box of 20ga #9.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chuck Norris's teeth break TSS #9 shot into pieces

[crow]

LaLongbeard, I did read the whole thing,

and now I'm ready for some lighter reading, like "The Fall of Rome"

[Sir-diealot]

This thread turned into a Facebook squabble. But yes, Sir-diealot, I think a box of TSS would make a wonderful sportsman giveaway. I'd love to win a box of 20ga #9.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, my other suggestion was reloading equipment or a gift certificate to MidwayUSA.com

[LaLongbeard]

LaLongbeard, I did read the whole thing,

and now I'm ready for some lighter reading, like "The Fall of Rome"

Lol yea I guess me and Pa got a little carried away, I doubt either of us was convinced by the other.  I forgot to ask him what his stance is on decoys and reaping ?

[paboxcall]

LaLongbeard, I did read the whole thing,

and now I'm ready for some lighter reading, like "The Fall of Rome"

Lol yea I guess me and Pa got a little carried away, I doubt either of us was convinced by the other.  I forgot to ask him what his stance is on decoys and reaping ?

Pass on both of those. How about you?

I do like new stuff to make the gun more fun to tinker with though.

[NCL]

Easy choice for me lead is not legal so it has to be an alternative shot

[LaLongbeard]

LaLongbeard, I did read the whole thing,

and now I'm ready for some lighter reading, like "The Fall of Rome"

Lol yea I guess me and Pa got a little carried away, I doubt either of us was convinced by the other.  I forgot to ask him what his stance is on decoys and reaping ?

Pass on both of those. How about you?

I do like new stuff to make the gun more fun to tinker with though.

Yep hard pass on the decoys and reaping.

[paboxcall]

LaLongbeard, I did read the whole thing,

and now I'm ready for some lighter reading, like "The Fall of Rome"

Lol yea I guess me and Pa got a little carried away, I doubt either of us was convinced by the other.  I forgot to ask him what his stance is on decoys and reaping ?

Pass on both of those. How about you?

I do like new stuff to make the gun more fun to tinker with though.

Yep hard pass on the decoys and reaping.

[Tom007]

You guys kept it professional, clean. I learned a lot about this topic from both of you....

[g8rvet]

paboxcall has a firm grasp on physics.  I can only read the quoted replies of la.  The only thing I would disagree with is some of pa's terms, where he was quoting more about fluids-like the term momentum-still accurate, just less commonly used.

My point, that TSS is denser than lead, is factual.  Denser material of a similar size and coefficient of friction will retain it's energy longer-that is also a fact.  Force = Mass x acceleration.   Weight and density are two different things. So is mass.  They are not interchangeable terms.  Lead pellets must be larger (volume) to have the same weight as TSS because they are less dense.   Read up on Newton's Laws and try to understand them.  You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

I do get the anti-TSS argument about wound channels and bleeding-there is a tradeoff. I don't even use TSS, probably never will.   

What silvestris said is the truth as it relates to actual hunting though. Call them close and it does not matter. 

I can't really add anything more than what pa has said for anyone inclined to actually care about the physics of it.  That was the original question and the only reason I added anything.