Shot weight with a powder measure

[megasupermagnum]

I just wanted to share some real world data on what my lead shot with my adjustable powder measure throws for shot weight. I used an adjustable brass powder measure from TOTW. I first tested powder, and got reasonably close results. I won't go into detail, but set to 100, my measure threw an average of 98 grains of Fg Goex, and 98 grains of FFg Goex. I reset the measure, and got very close results again. I then threw 5 charges of lead shot at each setting from 70 to 120, to get an average of each. I used #5 Lawrence magnum shot. Chilled shot is likely the measure higher weight, and same with smaller shot sizes. I then put that data into a scatter graph and got an average line, to simulate results from 10 all the way to 150 settings on my measure. Results were nothing too surprising, and are close enough to what other people have reported. 70 through 120 are actual recorded numbers, anything else was calculated on a graph. Column A is the measure setting, column B is the shot weight in grains.

As you can see, they all seem to end up right between 1/8 oz increments. For example, set on 80, it ends up almost dead center between 1 ounce and 1 1/8 ounces. Hopefully this helps someone's curiosity.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Of course there is the table in the General Muzzleloading, Useful Tables, on Powder Measure / Shot Loads. It does me good to see that the information from 2006 hasn't changed.
Powder Measure Shot Loads Chart | The Muzzleloading Forum

Thanks too to @megasupermagnum for adding the new data points. It wouldn't hurt to add the new information to that sticky.

 

[russellshaffer]

Thanks, good info.

 

[George]

In 1767 Thomas Page wrote a book, The Art of Shooting Flying, and in describing his shot loads he said, "To avoid the extremes, I use the best powder, and put in equal measures of that and shot, which in weight is nearly as one to seven, but usually prime out of that quantity." I calculated the average ration of the weight of powder to shot in the above chart and it came to 1:5.9. Making allowances for measuring errors then and now, that seems in the ballpark. Might it be that Page's lead was pure, and our modern lead is a bit alloyed which would make it a little lighter?

Spence

 

[appalichian hunter]

Spence, square loads is what I have always heard it called, one measure set for the charge and same set for shot.

 

[Historian]

Yes, they used pure lead.

 

[Historian]

However, there is a Caveat, the load charts in the tables on the smoothbore table only work for lead shot. If you shoot bismuth you must adjust since it is slightly lighter than lead. If you are using any of the heavier stuff than you must also adjust. I am working on a load chart for bismuth so it can be added to another nontoxic table. Hope to have everything done by the end of this week.

 

[87TT]

When I bought my first ML shotgun (28 ga) back in '69', I used a sawed off 20 gauge shell for a measure. Equal amounts of each. A friend gave me the idea and it worked fine. Used crumpled paper for wads over and between. Who knew?

 

[megasupermagnum]

In 1767, not only was his shot likely pure lead, it was also probably home made. I won't claim to know the exact history on the manufacture of shot, but the shot tower wasn't patented until 1782. I've read that in the earliest days, shot was nothing more than pieces cut from a long strip, essentially making cubed shaped shot. I think it probable that in 1767, they would have been making a form of round shot by then. Swan shot is an example, which was a homemade shot, possibly poured through screens, which makes a teardrop shape.

My shot was Lawrence magnum shot. It is the finest lead shot you can buy. It has an antimony content of around 6%.

@Historian , that is a good idea. I look forward to your results. I have B size I could test. I also have #4, but I'm guessing you do as well. Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to do my velocity testing I've been wanting to get to.

 

[George]

Swan shot is an example, which was a homemade shot, possibly poured through screens, which makes a teardrop shape.

Swan shot was a molded shot. The shot poured through screens which had a teardrop shape or a tail was Rupert shot. Properly made Rupert shot was round with a small dimple, but it had a tail reminiscent of a swan's neck when poorly made.

Spence

 

[George]

I've read that in the earliest days, shot was nothing more than pieces cut from a long strip, essentially making cubed shaped shot. I think it probable that in 1767, they would have been making a form of round shot by then.

An Essay on Shooting, Wm. Cleator, 1789
"The patent milled shot is said to be made in the following manner. Sheets of lead, whose thickness corresponds with the size of the shot required, are cut into square stripes by a machine, and thus again into small pieces that are cubes; or of the form of a die. A great quantity of these little cubes are put into a large hollow iron cylinder, which is mounted horizontally and turned by a winch; when by their friction against one another and against the sides of the cylinder, they are rendered perfectly round and very smooth."

Spence

 

[Walkingeagle]

Swan shot was a reference to the size of the shot. Much like Buckshot is.
Walk

 

[looney]

Hey, fellas. There's one problem here that most everyone thinks is the truth. There was NO PURE LEAD during this time period. They had not discovered the methods to refine lead. The lead they used was melted out of the ore and used as is. The metal included lead (as the largest component), but also silver, arsenic, and a dozen or more other compounds. No such thing as pure lead back then!

 

[Woody Morgan]

I doubt it was much of an issue for them..

wm

 

[megasupermagnum]

Hey, fellas. There's one problem here that most everyone thinks is the truth. There was NO PURE LEAD during this time period. They had not discovered the methods to refine lead. The lead they used was melted out of the ore and used as is. The metal included lead (as the largest component), but also silver, arsenic, and a dozen or more other compounds. No such thing as pure lead back then!

I think you are splitting hairs here. Sure, Galena has a number of elements to it, but at the end of the day, we are talking about something that is maybe 98% pure lead or more. I cast a lot of my muzzleloader balls with stick on wheel weights. It is something like 99.75% lead, and 0.25% tin, and people sometimes try and argue that isn't pure lead either.

 

[Britsmoothy]

How about a summary.
Unrefined raw lead and a refined lead alloy.
Which is better? Don't care really. If its going cheap I'll shoot it

 

[appalichian hunter]

As long as it gets the job done.

 

[George]

Modern hardened shot has 2% to 6% antimony if I remember correctly. That might make it lighter than whatever the old boys were using. Or maybe not.

Spence

 

[Walkingeagle]

I have tested and retested with #7.5 lead shot, and 60gr volume measure is 1oz of shot (437gr) on both digital and balance scale.
Walk

 

[looney]

I just want everyone to be talking the same language. Some people say "pure lead" for any softer lead when in fact they don't realize it's not pure and may be some harder than " refined lead alloy".

Some threads seem to want to specify "pure" lead. Just realize what you're really using and what my 4th great grandfather used in Virginia.

Personally, I use wheel weights and range scrap. I have some "softer" lead. My groups with the wheel weights are better than softer lead or range scrap. But, that may be another thread...