Antimony

Again further to my other posts a more specific topic for deliberation.

Top quality loads have 5%

Cheaper stuff has 2%

We know that the difference in performance will be that the 5% will deform less so hold tighter pattern whereas 2% will deform more and have the odd flyer. 5% may also hit harder BUT in reality does this really mean that we should discount cheaper loads as inferior for serious comp ?

Discuss ?

Well Ian I don't think the Antimony content of the 5% pellet will hit harder than the 2% it may not deform as much and therefore break the target but it should in fact have less retained down range energy at a given distance than the 2% pellet so should not hit as hard lead has almost twice the specific gravity of Antimony! This is based purely on the difference of specific gravity of the two elements in the alloys. If you do this the pellets being uniform should give the low Antimony pellet a slightly higher mass than the high Antimony pellet and ballistics normally says that the higher mass pellet should carry more energy down range. BUT I must caveat this by saying that the alloying of the elements may lead the increasing mass with increasing Antimony content, for some reason elements can behave this way in alloys, but this is unlikely to be the case. I have worked in metallurgical labs but although non ferrous work I never actually worked with this alloy. In short I would say any real improvement in pattern with the 5% cartridge will be down to less deformed pellets, as you have said, and may break more targets at range down to less deforming of pellet when hitting the target... but counter this by saying the lower Antimony pellet should have more energy. Let's be clear here though we are talking very small amounts of everything in difference between the two. So that is my take on it.. I think any improvement between the two is down to the pattern and that the higher will deform less which may help break the target, rather than the actual increased retained energy at the point of impact

Interesting John and exactly the type of discussion i was hoping for.

I suppose we could put this topic for discussion a different way and ask the BIG Question - does 3% extra make any REAL difference or is it marketing hype.

Ian you are a man of the world with years of shooting experience! Ask yourself this question, which thing is going to break the target getting the shot ON THE TARGET or using a type of cartridge that uses a metallurgical phenomenon to improve the pattern... because in my very humble opinion that is where the biggest improvement will be seen. Do not think I am dismissing the cartridges they do exactly what they say on the tin... but when we miss it is not normally something that can be accounted for in merely the pattern thrown. Get you're shot on the target and break it, for the absolute elite of the sport who do it will no doubt break extra targets. For average shots I doubt it  but it will have a placebo effect... flame throwers out !

Fiocchi Official Team have a soft lead version to be more effective on Helice targets. Why should soft lead not have better energy transfer on all targets?

Exactly John.

Placebo, maybe that is THE main benefit. I have shot competitively for 28yrs and apart from two shoots i can remember (were the targets were of very hard compound and i know for a fact that i hit some that did not break) i can honestly say i don't think i have ever missed because of low antimony having said that i have had bad batches with poor burn that i know for a fact have cost me targets but i have experienced that with cheap and expensive so it begs the question of how much difference do expensive loads make in reality ?

40UP said:

Fiocchi Official Team have a soft lead version to be more effective on Helice targets. Why should soft lead not have better energy transfer on all targets?

Click to expand...

exactly my point Mr T. Are we merely falling in to a marketing trap and spending 60 quid per k more just for the magical ingredient that is 3% more alloy ?

You have been shooting even longer than me and at a higher level so what is your answer to johns question to me. Do you think you have ever had a poor score specifically because of low antimony ?

Just had a thought how long ago was antimony introduced into shot, and did scores across disciplines improve as a result ?

The ballistics say the soft lead pellet should have more energy down range, that is a good enough reason to think they will break more targets but the hardness of the alloy will also have an effect. The thing is that really good shots eg. Alipov will be shooting his targets with in feet of each other consistently so the energy is unlikely to play any part in the target breaking... pattern is another thing because there will be less fliers in the higher Anitmony cartridge, but how many of the normal distribution of users are at his level? Is it not more likely you missed the target rather than because there was a hole big enough for the target to pass through.. the shot string  

Did a famous shot not have a load specially made that had deformed shot included so as to create fliers? Marketing is great for selling a product though no doubt about it.

You're almost debating two questions at once here.

Antimony level for energy transfer and Antimony level for pattern quality. Like most things there must be a comprise from one to the other - harder shot = better patterns and softer shot = better energy transfer.

Having used all sorts of cartridges (soft game loads to super hard nickel plated) on clays during practice I can honestly say I could not tell from the quality of the breaks which type was being used. It either broke or it didn't, some were chipped and some were dusted as they always are.

The only observation I would add is, on a few belly showing driven clays you did get more holed without breaking properly with harder shot but not so many it made much difference. Was this the hardness of the clay though?

So for me, don't discount the lower antimony shot cartridges.  :biggrin:

Yes I think it is called "Scarified" (spellin poss wrong) shot mainly used for close stuff I think but could be talking twaddle.

I am a cartridge fan as you know Ian, I have my preferred 24gm and my softest 28gm and most effective 28gm for distance. I'm also into 36gm live bird cartridges and dabble in 40gm+. Shot sizes I have strong opinions on. Cartridge manufacturers for game refuse to use hard shot [read expensive] citing a babble about energy transfer even at £400/1000. They make game cartridges in 28gm and charge £100/1000 more for a different shot size. They do not have my sympathy. But quality cartridges made slowly to close tolerances are worth it if you are concerned with the last 2% of your results.

no.1topdog said:

You're almost debating two questions at once here. Antimony level for energy transfer and Antimony level for pattern quality. Like most things there must be a comprise from one to the other - harder shot = better patterns and softer shot = better energy transfer. Having used all sorts of cartridges (soft game loads to super hard nickel plated) on clays during practice I can honestly say I could not tell from the quality of the breaks which type was being used. It either broke or it didn't, some were chipped and some were dusted as they always are. The only observation I would add is, on a few belly showing driven clays you did get more holed without breaking properly with harder shot but not so many it made much difference. Was this the hardness of the clay though? So for me, don't discount the lower antimony shot cartridges.  :biggrin:

Click to expand...

if we eventually conclude that there is no tangible benefit in 200 quid + loads we will

a . Save a lot of money

b . Bevery unpopular with cartridge mfrs

Back to antimony: both trap gold medalists at the London Games used the uncoated version of the RC4 cartridge not the more expensive nickel coated. Only reason can be the specific density of the pellet.

40UP said:

But quality cartridges made slowly to close tolerances are worth it if you are concerned with the last 2% of your results.

Click to expand...

this I fully agree with, imo the main reason or benefit for expensive cartridges is quality and more importantly consistency, you and I have both witnessed huge differences in velocity on a chrono between certain cheap shells of the same batch, proof indeed of poor consistency, but if a consistent shell could be bought for let's say 150 with low antimony how would it stand out against a high antimony load ? Is antimony a major reason or is consistency the primary concern ?

40UP said:

Back to antimony: both trap gold medalists at the London Games used the uncoated version of the RC4 cartridge not the more expensive nickel coated. Only reason can be the specific density of the pellet.

Click to expand...

well that kind of answers the question then.

ips said:

Just had a thought how long ago was antimony introduced into shot, and did scores across disciplines improve as a result ?

Click to expand...

Ian , normally when a product that has a devaluing effect on a sport comes along the powers that be put a cap on it to preserve the integrity of the sport I think if there was a sudden move to shooters suddenly hitting 200 ex 200 in comps there would have been a hoo ha. Not unsurprisingly there has been no evidence of shooters doing this in competitions.. has there ? Which leads me to think that if the top shooters are using this product it may not be as effective as the hype. Mr Diamond hit 125ex125 in qualifying London 2012 and never got a medal, but was it the carts or him ? Did he hit one that did not break, was there a hole in the pattern due to fliers or did he just miss in the final shoot out?

ips said:

if we eventually conclude that there is no tangible benefit in 200 quid + loads we will

a . Save a lot of money

b . Bevery unpopular with cartridge mfrs

Click to expand...

Now you've come up with another assumption that high antimony loads are expensive and low antimony loads are cheaper. That's not always the case although it does sometimes follow this assumption.

I use expensive cartridges, even though I am incredibly tight with my money, because in my head they are better due to quality components and greater attention to detail in their consistency. I have used cheapies and cannot stand the "bloop, pfutt, fizz and pop" that sometimes emits from my gun. I know about the low recoil being good for not tiring the shooter but I much prefer a cartridge that lets me know it's gone off and sounds the same as the last one. It has a reassuring feel for me that way, and I am confident the shot is travelling in the general direction of the clay in a purposeful manner.

I might just be a cartridge snob however!  :biggrin:

I agree with that I prefer the "assumed" consistency of expensive ish loads also, as said many times buy the best you can afford.

my fault poss that we drifted, antimony yes beneficial or marketint ?