Did I explain this right?

[Sir-diealot]

Honestly Steve, if the #6 pattern well through your gun, moving to #8 TSS is of no measurable benefit, other than you like making bunch more holes in something. If that is your range give or take, your current shell will get it done no problem.

Save the money on the new shells, different choke tube possibly, patterning, and spend it on other toys.

Thanks, I have fooled around with trying another choke tube, I am running a Remington Turkey Full choke I think they call them now.

[LaLongbeard]

I found this chart, which I find interesting. It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards.  Looks like #7 TSS is the heavy hitter and maintains penetration, velocity, and pellet energy better than #9s and #5 lead. Either way, if you have adequate pattern density at 40 yards, any of the 3 will do the job. Good discussion.

click the PDF below to look at that chart. I tried to upload just a picture of the chart but I couldn't.

Hard to believe someone actually put a chart on the Internet with that info.
Good find...kinda wish you'd posted it yesterday would have saved a lot of typing lol

[paboxcall]

 

[Sir-diealot]

Honestly Steve, if the #6 pattern well through your gun, moving to #8 TSS is of no measurable benefit, other than you like making bunch more holes in something. If that is your range give or take, your current shell will get it done no problem.

Save the money on the new shells, different choke tube possibly, patterning, and spend it on other toys.

Found a picture of it, this is what I am using now.

[blake_08]

I found this chart, which I find interesting. It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards.  Looks like #7 TSS is the heavy hitter and maintains penetration, velocity, and pellet energy better than #9s and #5 lead. Either way, if you have adequate pattern density at 40 yards, any of the 3 will do the job. Good discussion.

click the PDF below to look at that chart. I tried to upload just a picture of the chart but I couldn't.

Hard to believe someone actually put a chart on the Internet with that info.
Good find...kinda wish you'd posted it yesterday would have saved a lot of typing lol

Honestly, i found it yesterday but i figured I'd just sit on it and let y'all hash it out for awhile. Sometimes it's hard to find good entertainment on a Monday!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ChiefBubba]

Honestly Steve, if the #6 pattern well through your gun, moving to #8 TSS is of no measurable benefit, other than you like making bunch more holes in something. If that is your range give or take, your current shell will get it done no problem.

Save the money on the new shells, different choke tube possibly, patterning, and spend it on other toys.

Thanks, I have fooled around with trying another choke tube, I am running a Remington Turkey Full choke I think they call them now.

If it was me I'd stick with it if it's working now. It's fun to try different things but it can get expensive. If it was a cheaper shell I'd say try it. Bubba

[NCL]

Blake,

Have to admit your comment made me chuckle.

[LaLongbeard]

It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards. 

Now if people would only comprehend what they are reading??
Either shoot TSS #7s or stop lying to yourself and everybody else   

[crow]

OK, so last night I saw the chart and was all like 

I decided to sleep on it to see if I would change my mind in the morning and go back to my lead roots.  Nope, I would not change anything I said earlier.

The charts are useful for a starting point, I agree with that. In the past I've asked for KPY #'s several times to have an idea of how TSS will penetrate compared to lead.

But based on my own experiences hunting with TSS for several years (spring and fall), I still say the practical real world hunting results are better with TSS than the charts are showing.

And as long as it's available I would still take a 20ga and TSS over a 3" 12ga and any #6-#4 lead load I could choose


If anyone wants the total lead experience there is a 10.9lb 10 gauge SXS for sale on Lion Country     ( it's not mine)

[Sir-diealot]

Honestly Steve, if the #6 pattern well through your gun, moving to #8 TSS is of no measurable benefit, other than you like making bunch more holes in something. If that is your range give or take, your current shell will get it done no problem.

Save the money on the new shells, different choke tube possibly, patterning, and spend it on other toys.

Thanks, I have fooled around with trying another choke tube, I am running a Remington Turkey Full choke I think they call them now.

If it was me I'd stick with it if it's working now. It's fun to try different things but it can get expensive. If it was a cheaper shell I'd say try it. Bubba

Looks like that will be what I will do. Thanks.

[paboxcall]

It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards. 

Now if people would only comprehend what they are reading??
Either shoot TSS #7s or stop lying to yourself and everybody else

I did actually comprehend it, and your conclusion regarding #7 TSS trumping everything is 100% spot on, #7 TSS is super bad medicine. However, your conclusion regarding #9 TSS isn't correct, nor does does it reflect what those charts say. For the sake of OG, keeping the difference set to 40 yards.

What is important is the percent differences in loss of energy. Math shows the percent change loss in foot-lbs is the same for the penetration and energy in these tables - do the math, lead #5 loses 65.9% of its energy at 40 yards, while the #9 TSS only sheds 51.8% of its initial muzzle energy at 40 yards. If you doubt it, I included it below.

What are the most important variables in play? Mass and physical size or surface area of the pellet - drag / air resistance / friction loss. That is expressed pointedly in the down range penetration energy where surface area differences between #5 and #9 becomes most pronounced.

A #9 TSS pellet has 55.2% greater penetration energy force than #5 lead because of its higher mass and its smaller surface area, and hardness. That math is also below, remember foot-lbs percentage loss is exactly the same in the penetration chart and the energy chart - it is exactly 65.9% for #5 lead, and 51.8% for #9 TSS.

While at first glance and without entertaining the reality of physics, the retained energy of #5 lead at 2.73 ft/lbs compared to 1.88 ft/lbs for #9 TSS may seem like an easy conclusion, that #5 lead 'hits harder.' It doesn't. The reason it doesn't is a #9 pellet is smaller with 67.3% more mass than its larger "heavier" #5 lead counterpart. This really illustrates the difference between weight and mass.

Because lead #5 has a only 1/3 the mass of a #9 TSS pellet, AND that #5 is 33.4% larger in physical size than its #9 TSS counterpart, the #9 TSS will hit harder over its surface area, and penetrate more deeply. Conversely, the lower mass and larger surface area of a #5 lead pellet, as evident in these charts, results in less penetration energy downrange on target than #9 TSS.

This is why people who shoot TSS come on OG and say things like 'I can't prove, but I know what I see when that load of TSS hits.'

Then you add significantly fewer #5 lead pellets (bigger things take up more space) hitting the 40 yard target, somewhere in the range of 100+ #5 lead in a 10" circle compared to compared to 300+ #9 TSS. Three times the pattern density, 2/3rds greater mass, less surface area, that's a freight train of TSS #9 sized energy going downrange and unleashed.

To put it another way, and while an exaggeration, sort of like getting hit with a kid's big fat wiffle ball bat compared to getting hit with the working end of a bladed 3 iron (refer to Tiger Wood's car for evidence).

So here is the math. Direct comparison in efficiencies.

Size: #5 = 0.12"           #9 = 0.08"
Difference in size:
0.12 - 0.08 = 0.04"
0.04 / 0.12 = #5 pellet is 33.34% larger

Difference in mass:
0.38868 (#5 Pb) - 0.6503 (TSS) = -0.26162
-0.26162 / 0.38868 = #5 pellet has 67.3% less mass


#5 energy loss: (foot-lbs is foot-lbs in two charts, loss is the same whether penetration or straight energy)
707.7 - 241.3 = 466.6 lbs-ft.in2 lost
466.2 / 707.7 =
65.9% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly more than 1/3 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

#9 energy loss:
776.1 - 374.4 = 401.7 lbs-ft/in2 lost
401.7 / 776.1 =
51.8% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly under 1/2 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

  -- OR --

#5 pellet ft-lbs energy loss over 40 yards:
8.00 - 2.73 = 5.27 lb-ft lost
5.27 / 8.0 = 65.9% loss of energy

#9 ft-lbs energy over 40 yards:
3.90 - 1.88 = 2.02 lb-ft lost
2.02 / 3.90 = 51.8% loss of energy

See? They are the same. What is important here is penetration energy - considering surface area and mass of the object in flight - this is exactly where #9 TSS trumps #5 lead.

40 yard energy difference between #5 pb and #9 TSS:
241.3 ft-lbs – 374.4 ft-lbs = -133.1 ft-lbs
-133.1 ft-lbs / 241.3 ft-lbs = -55.2% less penertration energy for #5 Pb comapred to #9 TSS at 40 yards

Other factor in the momentum or force equation is speed, right? For an object with less mass to make up its shortcomings, it must go faster. So for all things being equal, as the chart notes:

#5 velocity loss over 40 yards:
1,200 - 701 = 499 fps lost
499 / 1,200 = 41.6% loss in velocity

#9 over 40 yards:
1,200 - 834 = 366 fps lost
834 / 1,200 = 30.5% loss in velocity

Some may argue '133 fps difference at 40 yards, big deal' until you factor in the 67% additional mass - that factors into downrange force as evidenced in the penetration energy.

You continue to hear guys say ' wow, that #9 just flat knocked them off their feet.' Now, finally, we know why.

That is comprehension.

[Happy]

I gots a picture of longbeard with #5 shot you would be crazy not to love.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[paboxcall]

I gots a picture of longbeard with #5 shot you would be crazy not to love.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I'm certain you do. Many more smaller holes with #9 TSS, and significantly harder TSS pellet with no deformity like lead. Lead flattens easily.

[Rapscallion Vermilion]

It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards. 

Now if people would only comprehend what they are reading??
Either shoot TSS #7s or stop lying to yourself and everybody else

I did actually comprehend it, and your conclusion regarding #7 TSS trumping everything is 100% spot on, #7 TSS is super bad medicine. However, your conclusion regarding #9 TSS isn't correct, nor does does it reflect what those charts say. For the sake of OG, keeping the difference set to 40 yards.

What is important is the percent differences in loss of energy. Math shows the percent change loss in foot-lbs is the same for the penetration and energy in these tables - do the math, lead #5 loses 65.9% of its energy at 40 yards, while the #9 TSS only sheds 51.8% of its initial muzzle energy at 40 yards. If you doubt it, I included it below.

What are the most important variables in play? Mass and physical size or surface area of the pellet - drag / air resistance / friction loss. That is expressed pointedly in the down range penetration energy where surface area differences between #5 and #9 becomes most pronounced.

A #9 TSS pellet has 55.2% greater penetration energy force than #5 lead because of its higher mass and its smaller surface area, and hardness. That math is also below, remember foot-lbs percentage loss is exactly the same in the penetration chart and the energy chart - it is exactly 65.9% for #5 lead, and 51.8% for #9 TSS.

While at first glance and without entertaining the reality of physics, the retained energy of #5 lead at 2.73 ft/lbs compared to 1.88 ft/lbs for #9 TSS may seem like an easy conclusion, that #5 lead 'hits harder.' It doesn't. The reason it doesn't is a #9 pellet is smaller with 67.3% more mass than its larger "heavier" #5 lead counterpart. This really illustrates the difference between weight and mass.

Because lead #5 has a only 1/3 the mass of a #9 TSS pellet, AND that #5 is 33.4% larger in physical size than its #9 TSS counterpart, the #9 TSS will hit harder over its surface area, and penetrate more deeply. Conversely, the lower mass and larger surface area of a #5 lead pellet, as evident in these charts, results in less penetration energy downrange on target than #9 TSS.

This is why people who shoot TSS come on OG and say things like 'I can't prove, but I know what I see when that load of TSS hits.'

Then you add significantly fewer #5 lead pellets (bigger things take up more space) hitting the 40 yard target, somewhere in the range of 100+ #5 lead in a 10" circle compared to compared to 300+ #9 TSS. Three times the pattern density, 2/3rds greater mass, less surface area, that's a freight train of TSS #9 sized energy going downrange and unleashed.

To put it another way, and while an exaggeration, sort of like getting hit with a kid's big fat wiffle ball bat compared to getting hit with the working end of a bladed 3 iron (refer to Tiger Wood's car for evidence).

So here is the math. Direct comparison in efficiencies.

Size: #5 = 0.12"           #9 = 0.08"
Difference in size:
0.12 - 0.08 = 0.04"
0.04 / 0.12 = #5 pellet is 33.34% larger

Difference in mass:
0.38868 (#5 Pb) - 0.6503 (TSS) = -0.26162
-0.26162 / 0.38868 = #5 pellet has 67.3% less mass


#5 energy loss: (foot-lbs is foot-lbs in two charts, loss is the same whether penetration or straight energy)
707.7 - 241.3 = 466.6 lbs-ft.in2 lost
466.2 / 707.7 =
65.9% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly more than 1/3 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

#9 energy loss:
776.1 - 374.4 = 401.7 lbs-ft/in2 lost
401.7 / 776.1 =
51.8% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly under 1/2 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

  -- OR --

#5 pellet ft-lbs energy loss over 40 yards:
8.00 - 2.73 = 5.27 lb-ft lost
5.27 / 8.0 = 65.9% loss of energy

#9 ft-lbs energy over 40 yards:
3.90 - 1.88 = 2.02 lb-ft lost
2.02 / 3.90 = 51.8% loss of energy

See? They are the same. What is important here is penetration energy - considering surface area and mass of the object in flight - this is exactly where #9 TSS trumps #5 lead.

40 yard energy difference between #5 pb and #9 TSS:
241.3 ft-lbs – 374.4 ft-lbs = -133.1 ft-lbs
-133.1 ft-lbs / 241.3 ft-lbs = -55.2% less penertration energy for #5 Pb comapred to #9 TSS at 40 yards

Other factor in the momentum or force equation is speed, right? For an object with less mass to make up its shortcomings, it must go faster. So for all things being equal, as the chart notes:

#5 velocity loss over 40 yards:
1,200 - 701 = 499 fps lost
499 / 1,200 = 41.6% loss in velocity

#9 over 40 yards:
1,200 - 834 = 366 fps lost
834 / 1,200 = 30.5% loss in velocity

Some may argue '133 fps difference at 40 yards, big deal' until you factor in the 67% additional mass - that factors into downrange force as evidenced in the penetration energy.

You continue to hear guys say ' wow, that #9 just flat knocked them off their feet.' Now, finally, we know why.

That is comprehension.

Just to be clear, where you say "mass", I believe you meant density.  Mass = density x volume.  The #5 lead pellet has more than twice the mass of the #9 TSS, but 2/3 the density.

[paboxcall]

Yes, Raps, thanks for clarifying, that I "explained this right." LOL.