Hi Will,
I used to do a fair bit of actual pattern work back when but lately it's more reading the breaks and of course doing the maffs. I read and waited on the arrival of the Hull with an open mind as many seemed to believe it somehow gave superior patterns but nobody to date has come forward to clarify what this superiority entails. To me it should mean either more even distribution (not nekkekkarily helpful if so) or at least much higher percentage retention.
When I eventually shot them I found it did neither; months after their launch they eventually dared publish pics of their patterns and they looked just as you would expect them to look like, namely a round pattern with holes that appeared to contain a lot less shot than 28g. Nobody has come forward to claim £1k I put up years ago to disprove the oft quoted old wives tale of less shot leads to less deformity and hence better percentages by any meaningful degree. It is entirely possible to find a 28g load that gives superb (better) patterns than a 21g load through a given choke or barrel.
Of course 21g would break close to medium targets, why shouldn't it? So do reduced loads through 28 and 20 bore guns, we've always known this. We have also always known they can't live with a 12b/28g, that's my point. I just hate all the mushed up writing and pretence on the subject as though it does something it ought not to be able to do because Hull have pulled a blinder with balancing the components, that bit is absolute rubbish. It's just a reduced load that reduces recoil, nothing more. If we have a comp to see who can kill the furthest fox with a .22 rimmie it'll be won by someone who'll get a head shot at 230+ yards as it's possible. But it doesn't suddenly mean that .22 is good enough in the right hands at that distance.
Whenever I've shot them they appeared to give less convincing breaks with one too many inexplicable misses. They're not even substantially cheaper so for me that's another reason not to get conned in by Hull et al.
I used to do a fair bit of actual pattern work back when but lately it's more reading the breaks and of course doing the maffs. I read and waited on the arrival of the Hull with an open mind as many seemed to believe it somehow gave superior patterns but nobody to date has come forward to clarify what this superiority entails. To me it should mean either more even distribution (not nekkekkarily helpful if so) or at least much higher percentage retention.
When I eventually shot them I found it did neither; months after their launch they eventually dared publish pics of their patterns and they looked just as you would expect them to look like, namely a round pattern with holes that appeared to contain a lot less shot than 28g. Nobody has come forward to claim £1k I put up years ago to disprove the oft quoted old wives tale of less shot leads to less deformity and hence better percentages by any meaningful degree. It is entirely possible to find a 28g load that gives superb (better) patterns than a 21g load through a given choke or barrel.
Of course 21g would break close to medium targets, why shouldn't it? So do reduced loads through 28 and 20 bore guns, we've always known this. We have also always known they can't live with a 12b/28g, that's my point. I just hate all the mushed up writing and pretence on the subject as though it does something it ought not to be able to do because Hull have pulled a blinder with balancing the components, that bit is absolute rubbish. It's just a reduced load that reduces recoil, nothing more. If we have a comp to see who can kill the furthest fox with a .22 rimmie it'll be won by someone who'll get a head shot at 230+ yards as it's possible. But it doesn't suddenly mean that .22 is good enough in the right hands at that distance.
Whenever I've shot them they appeared to give less convincing breaks with one too many inexplicable misses. They're not even substantially cheaper so for me that's another reason not to get conned in by Hull et al.
