Tightest patterning fibre cartridge
- Thread starter Louma84
- Start date
Help Support :
Jonny English
Well-known member
I would hazard a guess at anything with larger shot in it. Maybe a Hull Sovereign 7 would be worth a try if ypu could get any.
Charliedog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 459
Not a great fan of fibres but for me, the best I have used for a tighter pattern were Cheddite Smart Strikes, price probably eye watering now.
Charliedog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 459
Blimey, pretty impressive on paper
Don't know about the cartridge but I have a 3800 skeet gun and the patterns are very good for fibre cartridges. I also used to have a 3800 trap and again it patterned very good with fibre. I think guns that are not back bored do generally pattern better with fibre cartridges
This is an article from Shotgun World a few years ago but it's just as relevent now.
https://www.shotgun-insight.com/fibreVsPlasticSporterShells.html
https://www.shotgun-insight.com/fibreVsPlasticSporterShells.html
Martinj
Well-known member
An interesting article, so there's very little to choose between Fibre and plastic wads (confirms what I have always thought) although in the comments it goes on to say that the merits of fibre wad cartridges are questionable in backbored guns and guns with long forcing cones. (I have both in my 692)
Perhaps that would be a test for another day. I would think (hope) that differences in performance would be marginal between backbored and non-backbored using fibre wads. I have to use fibre wads at some clay shoots and when shooting on a farm and never feel at a disadvantage when using them.
<><>If fibre wads do have an advantage it calls into question the merits of backboring. Even the proponents of backboring say that it is not compatible with fibre wads because they risk not making a good gas seal (unlike the skirt on a plastic wad that can expand). Given this I would not be wanting backboring on my gun - especially if a particular range or event mandates that fibre wads must be used. The same argument applies regarding extended forcing cones.
<><><>
Perhaps that would be a test for another day. I would think (hope) that differences in performance would be marginal between backbored and non-backbored using fibre wads. I have to use fibre wads at some clay shoots and when shooting on a farm and never feel at a disadvantage when using them.
<><>If fibre wads do have an advantage it calls into question the merits of backboring. Even the proponents of backboring say that it is not compatible with fibre wads because they risk not making a good gas seal (unlike the skirt on a plastic wad that can expand). Given this I would not be wanting backboring on my gun - especially if a particular range or event mandates that fibre wads must be used. The same argument applies regarding extended forcing cones.
<><><>
One option for backbored guns using fibre wads is the now available cartridges that use biodegradable plastic obturators together with a fibre wad. So you get the performance of a plastic wad skirt. The obturator replace the traditional over powder card.
B&P and I think Gamebore for example offer such cartridges.
I have to agree.I and my guns really get on with olympic blues.i went to a shoot a few weeks ago and it was fibre only,I took some with me but they offered a round of clays with cartridges included so I went with that option.they were eley superbs and everyone was using them.
They were excellent.I couldn't tell the difference.
The difference between fibre and plastic is huge
Performance, consistency and down range energy. In a box of 25 fibre it’s like a mix n match. And back bored it gets worse
Gamebore bridged this gap with the quad seal
Performance, consistency and down range energy. In a box of 25 fibre it’s like a mix n match. And back bored it gets worse
Gamebore bridged this gap with the quad seal
Last edited:
Some of that may have been true years back but traditional fibre cartridges if matched with today modern powders of the correct type can deliver excellent results. A standard deviation of less than 6 on velocity and 23 on pressure is on par with plastic wads.
As for down range energy it matters not what the wads type is if the shot is the same type, size and velocity when it leaves the muzzle.
Only shoot fibre wads and have done for years as that’s what the majority of Clay grounds stipulate and also most farmers in Southeast Kent. Why pollute the ground with single use plastic when no need too?
Unfortunately you’re mistaken here. The wad has huge impact on down range energy when energy is lost at the barrel.
Is short terms fibre were shit years ago and still are now. Hence the reason the top shots don’t use them
Clearly you do not understand external ballistics, i said shot with equal muzzle velocities, ie the shot has left the barrel, which hence can no longer have any influence on the down range energy. CIP measure the velocity at 2.5mtrs well clear of the barrel, as per the proof results.
Possibly the shot will be retained within a plastic wad for a distance, which may help the terminal velocity of the shot and hence energy, however I would not expect that to be significant.
Probably more likely to improve the down range pattern as it starts to spread after leaving the wad cup.
Round shot has a poor ballistic coefficient and quickly loses velocity.
So top shots use plastic wads at a fibre only ground do they?
Last edited:
Lol I understand then to high level and I get to see the computer data on the down range energy
Some are up to 33% different
Ps plastic and fibre don’t come out at same speed or energy
Oldblaster
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 407
Personally l wouldn't worry too much about fibre, l shot the same 100 bird shoot once with plastic wads and directly afterwards with fibre and my score was only a couple of birds difference! If you are on em, you are on em!
