Talk:Shotgun cartridge

Equations

The equations as listed on Dec, 27, 2009, 4:08pm Mountain Time, produce answers which are incorrect by a factor of 10. The data in the table is correct, but the equations are not. There is a notice stating the table is incorrect with no explanation. I am removing that statement and correcting the equations.
I really don't even think the whole explanation of the equations is all that necessary, nor is having two equations, I'de like to hear some input. Theava (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Old "Equation Research Notation"

I removed this from the article in favor of putting it on the talk page as it is not really relevant to the article.

Formula Research Notation

Because the shotgun gauge size (n) equals the sphere size of lead (a lead ball) that weights 1/n lbs (a dozen 12 gauge lead balls weigh 1 lb. all together), specific gravity (density) of lead needs to be incorporated into the formula. However specific gravity for lead varies from 11.34 to 11.39 based on various lists. Lead contains impurities when it is mined and this causes its specific gravity to typically fall below 11.34 until it is purified. Lead ingots and cast lead will have the lowest specific gravity, while rolled lead will have higher density (highest specific gravity).

The formula uses a specific gravity (density) of 11.3523 g/cm³ because it showed the greatest decimal accuracy in research, whereas most other official records document 11.352 (and many round to 11.35) as the specific gravity for ingots and cast lead.

Assuming the specific gravity is accurate, mathematically, the formula is precise up to 1/1000th of an inch (three decimal places), and the fourth decimal place (1/10,000th of an inch) is fairly accurate because of the decimal precision used to develop it; e.g. Specific gravity (density) for lead metal is 11.3523g/cm³ and 1/0.0254" per meter (39.3700787401575” per meter) was used to determine 16.387064 cm³ per inch³, resulting in lead metal weighing 0.41012785697255 lbs/in³.

71.196.219.226 (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Dimensions

No mention of shell length? Actually, I was quite impressed with all the dimensions presented on our rifle and handgun cartridge articles (Name Bullet Length Rim Base Neck OAL) but I've never equivalent info on shotshells (here or elsewhere). Is it just because shells are made with less precision? Obviously some of these dimensions don't apply, but it would be interesting to see pre-fired length, base and rim diameters (e.g., some people say the .303 British / .45 Colt / .444 Marlin has the same rim as .410 shotgun ammo, but I have never seen any data on the latter). Boris B 03:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shotshells are pretty variable. The length given is the length of the hull, which is the post-fired length. Subtract half the bore diameter from the hull length to get the OAL of the shell before firing. Loaded length can actually vary quite a bit, compared to metallic cartridges, because accuracy isn't usually a big deal (slug guns being the exception) and the large scale and low pressures of shotguns seem to be pretty forgiving. The big issue with hull length is the same motivating factor for making, say, the .357 Mag longer than the .38 Spl, i.e. the pressure is higher so you don't want to have the high pressure shell fitting in the low pressure gun. And like the .38/.357, running 2 3/4" shells through a 3" shotgun, or even 2 9/16" or 2 1/2" shells, is more a matter of having the power to operate an autoloading mechanism more than a feeding issue. The limiting length seems to be pretty short; the Aguila "minishells" will function just fine in Winchester pumps, and with mixed success in Remington and Mossberg pumps. Those are about 2" shells, as I recall--really short, and light loads.

That said, the bit about how hull length is measured should be included (took me a long time to figure that out) and the common current and obsolete sizes should be listed. scot 00:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge From suggestion

• Totally For. Shotgun shells have to do with a shotgun right? They could be put under a subtopic. 67.167.127.118 added by Yaf 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 17 March 2007

• For: Those areticles subcategories of a shotgun shell and therefore should be under this overall category.--Asams10 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I suggested it because except for the shotgun slug article none of those articles are more than a paragraph, and it would work nicely for this article to un three sectioms: shot, slugs, specialty ammunition.--70.51.176.45 13:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I added mergeinto tags to all of the suggested articles. The info seems to be essentially duplicated with the exception of the Shotgun section which could stay. I didn't put a tag there because it says to see the main article. Perhaps that section can be slimmed down significantly as a duplication instead of being directly merged.--Asams10 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Partially for. I think that the resulting article might be a bit on the large size, and there will be too much scope involved. I think shotsells should be covered in this article, as those are by far the most common ammunition type. Shotgun slugs deserve their own article (with Foster and Brenneke slugs merged in), since they are radically different in application from shotshells, and are the next most common type of shotgun ammunition. All the other types of specialty ammunition can probably be lumped together into a single article. I think that will result in three articles of reasonable length and focused scope. scot 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Early shotguns did not have such a thing as a shell - they were muzzle loaded with just a paper wrapping around the shot. A Shotgun shell may refer to shells which don't contain lead shot, for instance a single solid projectile. Also, lead shot is used many things which are unrelated to shotguns, especially as ballast in various situations (e.g. I have seen Hydrometers that use lead shot) --Ozhiker 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• For: as being able to see all the various data in just one article would greatly increase the value of the data and improve comprehension in reading the article, rather than forcing a reader to go from mini-article to mini-article. Early shotguns without shells could probably just be covered under muzzleloaders, unless there is enough material to warrant an article unto itself. Yaf 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to list: Found another orphan article today that should probably be added to the list: Rat-shot. It had essentially no links to it, and would benefit by being merged here, too. Yaf 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Rat-shot isn't a shotgun shell, it's used to give rifles/pistols shotgun functionality.Zoift 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it not a shotgun shell? They make smoothbore .22 Long Rifle shotguns specifically for these, such as Marlin's Garden Gun; it's just a rimfire .220 bore shotgun... scot 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Against: There is enough information for this article to stand on its own. 68.196.104.119 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

against:

67.177.116.171

• Strongly against The articles about the specialty shells should all remain, with brief pointers in the main article to the articles about the specialty shells.
  • The wikipedia works best, can best take advantage of the ability for wikipedia articles to be widely interlinked, if the articles are generally, short and focussed. Omnibus articles, that try to cover several related topics throw away the advantages of that the ability to inter-link provides.
  • We don't know, can't know, why readers come to the wikipedia, arrive at our articles. Imagine, for instance, that a reader is only interested in:
    1. Technologies for breaching doors, windows. Well, then they would only be interested in reading the articles about breaching rounds, (and, of course, other technologies for breaching, that have nothing to do with shotguns — on dallas swat they hook a big chain to windows, or doors, and pull the whole window, or door, out of the wall, or sometimes they pull the whole wall off...) Why the heck should that reader have to scan through all the other kinds of shotgun rounds?
       • An article about door breaching technologies should be able to link directly to articles about breaching rounds, skipping the step of making the reader scan through the rest of an article about ordinary shotgun shells.
       • But can't the articles about breaching technologies contain a link like [[shotgun shell#breaching rounds|breaching rounds]]? Nope. This is a highly fragile work around. It strips the wikipedia of the most important advantage it has over plain old html links. HTML links are one directional. When you look at an HTML web-page, there is no good way to know what links to it. A web-page author might make a slight change in the name or location of a web-page, without realizing it will cause chaos to someone who had been linking to their page. Well, when you don't link just to a page, but rather, to a specific heading on a page, then your link breaks if another wikipedian changes the spelling, punctuation, capitalization of that heading. Or that other wikipedian might remove the heading altogether. In that event the reader gets taken to the top of the shotgun article. They will think to themselves, "Hey, I thought this wikipedia was supposed to be just about as well constructed as encyclopedia brittanice! But I just clicked on a link named "breaching rounds" and it has taken me to an article about "shotgun shells". What the heck do they have in common?
       • An even worse situation would be if someone removed all references to breaching rounds from shotgun shells. Then the reader would really be confused as to why their interest in breaching technology took them to shotgun shells.
    2. Or the reader might be interested in less-lethal munitions: sponge rounds, smoke rounds, tear gas munitions — but not in lethal munitions — and in other less-lethal technologies, like tazers, stun grenades, and so on.
    3. I believe there are specialty munitions used by bosuns to send messenger lines between ships at sea. Why the heck would someone interested in this kind of technology have to read about the lethal rounds?
  • There are many paths through the multidimensional universe of human knowledge that would cross various kinds of shotgun munitions, that have nothing to do with the most common shotgun shells that contain shot, for lethal or target purposes.
  • Cheers! — Geo Swan 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems flat in this area. All of the suggested merges are, in fact, SHOTGUN SHELLS or parts thereof. They differ in ways that are relatively minor. You seem to suggest that somebody looking for a breachng round article would be surprised and upset that they discovered that a breeching round is a type of shotgun shell. It is more succinct to describe a very minor subcategory of a shotgun shell under the shotgun shell article. On this we disagree, but I would like an honest discussion of why we disagree. One could conceivably list every type of self-contained firearm load under one article. We could have recoilless rifles, howitzers, mortars, shotshells, caseless cartridges, rifles, pistols, etc under one gigantic, muddy article. We don't.

We appear to disagree on where we say, 'it needs its own article' and where we say, 'it belongs in the main article.' For me, I believe it is most appropriate to roll everything into one, relatively short article for the sake of context, clarity, and ease of access. --Asams10 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Against: I think that merging articles is a good solution for stubs, short articles, or topics that are either duplicates under different wording, or very, very similar. This is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should go in depth. This means that specific topics need to have their own articles. "[Rolling] everything into one, relatively short article" would diminish the quality of the content on this topic. Details that are here should stay. If someone wants a simple explanation, Simple English Wikipedia is a great place for that. I think that the articles should remain seperate, and in depth. If an article in an orphan, give it the orphan tag and take care of it that way. Phasmatisnox 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Against ...On just two points! I found this article because I was researching Hafnium which links to Dragon's Breath, and it would have been difficult to find in a much larger article. Also, it is a rather impressive and unique phenomenon of nature don't you think? The photograph shows this graphically. Perhaps Dragon's Breath deserves to have an independent existence on that basis also. Perhaps the article could also be expanded with reference to the chemistry behind this phenomenon. It is not necessarily limited to firearms in subject matter. (The phenomenon appears to be caused only by powders of the two sister-metals Hafnium and Zirconium when these powders come into contact with the air.) --Elizabeth Jane 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dragon's Breath cartridge is non-notable; it's merely a novelty with, to the best of my ability to determine, no notable use (only rumors of use by firefighters for starting backfires). Other than the image, the article contains not much more than the blurb in the specialty ammunition section. The image is certainly worth keeping, but it might be best used in the article on zirconium and/or hafnium, with links to the shotgun shell article. The only references I have that refer to the composition of Dragon's Breath only mention zirconium, not hafnium. scot 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly against: Lion, Tiger, Jaguar, and Claw are parts of or types of cats, but merging would clearly be silly. In particular, Lead shot should not be merged -- the articles have almost no overlap. --N Shar 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Against This is not ordinary shotgun shell and there are other varieties in addition to zircomium one, including the thermite-filled version I have heard about. No citations, unfortunately. - Skysmith 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Against The article should be expanded with discussions for example of the use of lead shot in polishing gold jewelery, and more information on the manufacture of lead shot (which is what brought me to the article -- I want to build a testing device for glass which uses lead shot and I am not in the US where it is readily available, so would like to make my own -- ie. nothing to do with shotguns at all.) A reference to a related topic is what is needed in the shotgun article. Tom 11:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against My understanding of the argument in favor of merging is that these are all types of shotgun shells but I think this would create a single page that is way too long. This is exactly what a category page is for. Speaking of which, why are half of these things not listed in the category page? Scott.medling 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To get it on the category page requires adding the category to the individual articles. If you see any that aren't in the list, by all means add the tag. scot 13:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Against, with proviso...

The title of this piece is: 'Shotgun Shell'. I think most shotgun shooters define a slug as something other than a shell. Strictly speaking a shell is an enclosed/sealed casing containing propellant and projectile(s) and this certainly could cover both shot and slug loads (plus other exotics). However for the puposes of specificity and in recognition of the fact that we have and use distinct terms like 'shotgun slug', the two should be considered separate types of load for shotguns. That being said, a one-stop reference page for shotgun ammunition would certainly include a TOC with each type identified, no? So, why not change the title of the piece to 'ammunition' instead of 'shell' and include 'shell' as a sub-type (albeit the primary sub-type)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.199.228 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

What about 3-inch Magnums?

When I bought my first and only shotgun, a Remington Model 870 Express Magnum 12-gauge, I was told to make sure I got the one that will fire 3" magnums. However, I don't think I have ever fired 3" magnums out of it. All I've done with it is Trap & Skeet shooting. In fact, I'm not even sure if I have ever fired them unless that's what my dad had us using on hunts when we were kids. Twenty years later I still don't know. I learned a lot of stuff from this article, but, I did not learn anything about what I came here for. The gun's barrel is even engraved with info on this. I know it's similar to how my revolver will fire .38's or .357's, but it seems like I should know about 3 inch magnums and what they're for. So I strongly feel that a Wikipedia article called "Shotgun shell" should explain this. BillyTFried (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The length designation refers to the uncrimped length of the shotshell's hull. Even among shells of the same nominal length, the lengths of loaded shotshells can vary depending upon the crimp style: roll crimp versus star crimp. Shorter shotshells can be fired in longer chambers due to the fact that they headspace on their rim. Longer shotshells should not be forced into shorter chambers, as the crimped portion will not have enough room to properly unfold. This can raise pressures and possibly damage the shotgun. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't you think some of this info belongs in the article itself? Including why they are called magnums? Are all 3-inchers called magnums? And are all magnums 3 inches? And what are they generally used for? Are they prohibited from certain uses such as competitions or at certain shooting ranges? My memory is foggy on this but I seem to recall seeing a sign once that said "No Blah-Blah Shot (steel?) and No Magnums!" (houses nearby?). And my memory is REAL foggy on this one, but years ago while visiting my brother, he coaxed me into a Trap Competition with a bunch of seasoned shooters. Thinking he was just setting me up to look like I fool, I did it anyway. Well, to mine and everyone else's dismay, I beat their pants off and came in 2nd place. On the car ride home, I said CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?, to which he responded... Yeah, you cheated! And said it was the ammo he gave me, which I think may have been 3" magnums. He could have been referring to shot size though too. Dunno. BillyTFried (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There 3.5", 3", and 2.75" Magnum loads for 12 gauge. The first two are all typically classified as Magnums, but not all 2.75" are. The designation Magnum refers to a shell having extra powder and/or shot (pellets). It is believed to confer extra range either through the added velocity or increased pattern density of the shot. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Dram?

“ Shells used on the trap range are limited to three-dram equivalent loads, with no more than 1 1/8 ounces of shot. Shot size is limited to 7½, 8 or 9 shot only. ”

I'm not sure what they are referring to, but the word "Dram" does not appear in this article at all. BillyTFried (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A dram is a unit of weight. The blackpowder charges of old shotshells were typically weighed in drams. Once semi-smokeless and smokeless powders were introduced, the weight of powder needed decreased for a given level of performance. So, shotshell makers advertised dram equivalents instead. This indicated the equivalent power of a smokeless powder shotshell to an old shotshell using that number of drams of black powder. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article here dram (drachm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Ought" vs "Aught"

Shouldn't the buckshot sizes 00, 000 etc. be spelled as "double-aught" instead of "double-ought"? Aught means zero, ought usually means duty or obligation. Certainly aught is the more correct spelling. 68.146.22.175 (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, ought is an alternate spelling for aught (zero), in American English. FWIW, I tried making the same change a few months ago (to Aught), and it was quickly reverted, since ought (in the context of shotgun shells) is the more common use. Trasel (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unscientifically, if you google the words, "Aught" and "Buckshot", together and you come back with 1,890 hits. If you google the words "Ought" and "Buckshot" you come back with 29,000. If I could go out on a limb, that means that for every time the word "Aught" is used, the word "Ought" is used fourteen times. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. Let Wikipedia lead the way! Rosierossinie (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I changed all the "aughts" to "oughts" without reading the talk page first . . . my bad. I'll probably get reverted.

Now that I'm here, though, let me make my pitch for the change. "Aught" means "anything." Quite nonsensical in this context. "Ought" means the number zero. Exactly what is required in this context. Check your OED.VaneWimsey (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the correct answer is naught or nought, both of which mean nothing (zero). Both aught & ought have alternative meanings. eg You ought to know that you know aught.

144.139.103.173 (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

shell/cartridge

I would just like to say that perhaps the article should be moved or merged or something.I would consider "cartridge" to be the proper term.A cartridge,it gun sense,packages primer,powder,and bullet,in the case,into one package,designed to precisely fit the firing chamber(s) of the arm chambering it.is this not what these do?In real life conversation and such,I use the term "cartridge(s)" to refer to these.Can anybody contest this,can anyone provide where the term "shell" came from to refer to shotgun cartridges?because "cartridge(s)" is common use in places,and seems proper.cheers,Keserman (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Photograph and caption: ambiguous how layers match up

The photograph of a shell in a transparent plastic casing is extremely useful, combined with the caption explaining what the various layers are. However, there seem to be two more layers in the photograph than in the caption, so there's ambiguity. If I had to guess, I'd conclude that the adjacent pink, brown, and pink layers are collectively the shot wad, but I don't know that for sure. Could someone with the necessary knowledge clarify this in the caption (or add the two missing layers to the caption, if that's what's needed)? 153.31.113.21 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The pink/brown/pink is one layer. It's a wad with internal layers, the outer two are dense and seal in the barrel, the inner layer is compressible and acts as a buffer. They're stamped out discs of thick card, like artist's mounting board. The reason for the seal is obvious, the need for the compressible layer is because a stiff wad (and they used to be done that way a century ago) can tear when fired, so no longer sealing. They have two sealing surfaces, mostly so that they can be loaded either way up, which is simpler automatically.

This type of card wad has mostly disappeared now, especially for hard steel shot rather than soft lead. They now use a moulded plastic cup. This seals at the bottom, then there's a plastic spring or frangible buffer, then a cup to hold the shot. This keeps the shot off the barrel wall, reducing fouling from lead or high wear from steel. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and detailed explanation. That's obviously too long to insert into the caption, but if any reader has the same question I did after viewing the image, they should find your helpful explanation here on the Talk page. 153.31.113.21 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Inventor?

Who?2601:806:4301:C100:E163:BCCC:8CC9:D921 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a cite for the earliest shotgun shells being brass? Brass-base, paper-tube pinfire shells were available in the 1850s. It's my understanding that drawn brass cartridge cases only became available around 1870. Even brass rifle and pistol cartridges were loaded in pieced-together or coiled cases before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.157.242 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

The lead is currently largely composed of information (flechettes, slugs, rifled shotguns, sabot) which isn't in the main body. This information should be moved into the main body, and the lead rewritten to be a summary of the entire article. (Hohum ^@) 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with a problematic table

@Flyer22 Reborn, Skidoo, Arjayay, Loraof, StraussInTheHouse, and Indefatigable: Recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. The table in the "Birdshot selection" subsection looks fine in my desktop browser (Firefox 66.0.2 running under macOS Mojave v. 10.14.4) but in my phone's browser (iOS Safari v. 12.2) it shows an extra, empty column on the righthand side, which I cannot fix nor find the reason for. Help, please? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I'm not clear on how I can help you, except to point you to WP:Village pump (technical). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks—I'll try that. (I'm seeing the same thing in the "Standard" subsection's table, and the Battleship (game)#Description section's table as well.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylan Phegley (article contribs).