Stupid Shotgun Question…Shot Cup/Wad Energy?

August 17, 2018, 04:06 PM

So I imagine most of us have at least some shotgun experience and know that when you discharge a shotgun the wad/shot cup goes flying out with the payload.

I was just musing today about how much energy are those putting out on a target. Certainly enough to go though heavy cardboard. Are they dangerous in any real way beyond getting whacked in the eye?

Purely an an academic question of course since the oz or so of high velocity lead is the more pressing issue.

. I just got curious.

Chris

August 17, 2018, 04:16 PM

kidcop

They've been pulled out of people being treated for GSWs, and during autopsies.

August 17, 2018, 06:33 PM

sigfreund

quote:
Originally posted by kidcop:
They've been pulled out of people being treated for GSWs, and during autopsies.

When shot at what distances?

August 17, 2018, 07:08 PM

copaup

Seen a lot of shotgun wounds. Only time I've seen a wad inside the victim was on contact wounds where it was effectively still part of the shot column.

August 18, 2018, 10:15 PM

Texas Bob C.

There is a video on youtube that shows a wad putting a pretty good dent in a Suburban door.

August 20, 2018, 08:04 PM

Scooter123

I wouldn't want to get hit by one but when shooting trap I've seen that they pretty much run out of steam about 35-40 yards out. On the other hand on a couple occasions I've been able to dust a clay as it's falling into the berm which is about 50-60 yards downrange.

BTW, the range I shoot at has audio triggers and I've found through experience that if you drop the bolt on a semi or pump too close to the pickup it will launch a clay. Means that clay is set off while you still have the shotgun at waist level so it becomes a game of "catch up". Which is why I sometimes have to chase a clay down out at at the berm. One thing that is amazing about doing this is how much extra lead you have to use to catch those long range "birds".

August 21, 2018, 11:16 AM

lyman

when the shotgun guys use the 100yrd range, (or the local police) with buckshot, I see the wads between the 50 yrd short berm (basically a speed bump to set the target frames) and the 100yrd lind,
rarely see on that made it past about 60 yrds

October 31, 2018, 07:19 AM

ACPFAN

quote:
Originally posted by cslinger:
So I imagine most of us have at least some shotgun experience and know that when you discharge a shotgun the wad/shot cup goes flying out with the payload.

I was just musing today about how much energy are those putting out on a target. Certainly enough to go though heavy cardboard. Are they dangerous in any real way beyond getting whacked in the eye?

Purely an an academic question of course since the oz or so of high velocity lead is the more pressing issue. . I just got curious.

Chris

Flite Control wads stick with the shot until at least around 10 yards out, so we can presume they are moving at the same velocity the buckshot is. The next thing we have to do, is weigh the shot cup. You had me curious, so in the middle of this post I went rooting around outside, found me one, and weighed it. It came in at 57.1 grains, per my scale which got a 70gr GMX at 69.9 grains as the control.

The rest is simple math. I clock these rounds from my 14" Benelli in low-recoil format at 1088fps average, 3m from the muzzle. You are looking at roughly 142-144 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from the wad at 8-10 yards, presuming it stays with the shot at that distance, which high speed videography suggests it does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dbZK9Lm9jQ&t=147s

October 31, 2018, 08:16 AM

sigfreund

quote:
Originally posted by ACPFAN:
You are looking at roughly 142-144 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from the wad at 8-10 yards, presuming it stays with the shot at that distance, which high speed videography suggests it does.

Thank you for all that; it’s good to see someone go to the trouble of attempting to determine an actual answer to a question like this. And it’s not a trivial question given the continuing popularity of shotguns as law enforcement weapons. Just a couple of days ago I read an article on a police oriented web site that was extolling their virtues.

I much prefer patrol rifles as long gun weapons for police, and one of the problems I identified with shotguns long ago is what’s being discussed here: the wad or cup veers off from the shot at some point, either near or far, and constitutes a projectile whose path is totally unpredictable. And why does that matter?

In studies by the US military, it was determined that a projectile with 58 foot-pounds of energy was capable of causing a casualty, i.e., an injury sufficient to render a soldier combat ineffective for a time, not an “owie” or “boo-boo.” Even though a plastic wad would penetrate far less than a metal projectile or fragment, 140+ foot-pounds of energy isn’t insignificant.

There have been documented incidents in which police officers have used shotguns as precision fire weapons to rescue hostages. I’m not aware of any such incidents in which a hostage was injured by shotgun wadding, but could it happen? That certainly seems possible, and it’s not enough to say, “Well, being blinded is better than being shot in the head by a hostage-taker,” especially when there are weapons available that don’t throw projectiles out at unpredictable angles.

October 31, 2018, 11:40 AM

ACPFAN

quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by ACPFAN:
You are looking at roughly 142-144 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from the wad at 8-10 yards, presuming it stays with the shot at that distance, which high speed videography suggests it does.

Thank you for all that; it’s good to see someone go to the trouble of attempting to determine an actual answer to a question like this. And it’s not a trivial question given the continuing popularity of shotguns as law enforcement weapons. Just a couple of days ago I read an article on a police oriented web site that was extolling their virtues.

I much prefer patrol rifles as long gun weapons for police, and one of the problems I identified with shotguns long ago is what’s being discussed here: the wad or cup veers off from the shot at some point, either near or far, and constitutes a projectile whose path is totally unpredictable. And why does that matter?

In studies by the US military, it was determined that a projectile with 58 foot-pounds of energy was capable of causing a casualty, i.e., an injury sufficient to render a soldier combat ineffective for a time, not an “owie” or “boo-boo.” Even though a plastic wad would penetrate far less than a metal projectile or fragment, 140+ foot-pounds of energy isn’t insignificant.

There have been documented incidents in which police officers have used shotguns as precision fire weapons to rescue hostages. I’m not aware of any such incidents in which a hostage was injured by shotgun wadding, but could it happen? That certainly seems possible, and it’s not enough to say, “Well, being blinded is better than being shot in the head by a hostage-taker,” especially when there are weapons available that don’t throw projectiles out at unpredictable angles.

One must keep in mind that energy is only part of the equation.

In situations where collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable, Brenneke or other attatched-wad slugs are the answer.

As a footnote, the average punch is well above 58 ft-lbs. One punch kill? Not so much. There are many more factors.

http://www.science.ca/askascie...question.php?qID=821

October 31, 2018, 07:18 PM

sigfreund

quote:
Originally posted by ACPFAN:
One must keep in mind that energy is only part of the equation.

Oh, true. It would be interesting to see some actual wad/cup penetration tests in a simulant medium.

I have never heard of any law enforcement agency using a Brenneke-type slug as normal issue, but the THD looks interesting. I will nevertheless continue to promote the use of rifles when precision shots without the possibility of errant projectiles are required.