Talk:Shotgun slug
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Picture of Brenneke
The article needs a description of a Brenneke slug. RPellessier | (Talk) 06:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'll take a shot at it, no pun intended. Here's the briefest description I can think of that touches upon all the salient points:
-
-
- Shotgun slug of German design, distinctive for its wadcutter profile, the cast-in vanes on its sides intended to impart spin by air resistance, its felt base wad held in place by means of a steel screw, and its hard lead alloy construction. Unlike most solid shotgun projectiles, it is cast of a hard, tough lead alloy approximating linotype alloy, rather than swaged from pure soft lead. It was designed to provide increased penetration in soft tissue for hunters of large dangerous game, such as Alaskan brown bears. They have been fairly popular with hunters in the United States and Canada for decades.
-
-
- What do y'all think?
-
-
- That looks good, but there is an article Brenneke slug that covers most of that. Might be worth you looking over to see if there's anything you can add there. scot 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Merge slug articles
I don't agree that this should be merged in Shotgun shell, but I think the minor slug articles would benefit from being merged into this, such as Brenneke slug, Foster slug, etc. Arthurrh 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposed merge: There is enough information in the Brenneke slug article to justify itself. Additionally, if articles are merged, the differences between various shotgun slugs will be minimized, and users will be less inclined to add additional information about individaul slugs. Twanebo 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mistake
This article describes the Brenneke slug as being a variant of the Foster slug, but the individual articles on each slug indicate that the Brenneke slug dates to the 1890's, and that the Foster slug was not invented until the mid 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.91.83 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
This article claims that the 'rifling' on a Foster slug imparts spin, but the Foster slug article states that it does not. Which is it? 203.20.253.5 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It does impart some spin, but the issue of "how much" and "does it make a difference" are subject to debate. Chuck Hawks says the rifling is not effective, by this article on new slug designs shows that the new, high-tech slugs for smoothbores still use rifling, some, like the Winchester Super-X PowerPoint, RackMaster, and some slugs I've seen for handloading, have even extended the fins up to the tip so that they become more effective. On the other hand, no one quotes any sources or stats on just how much spin is or isn't imparted by the "rifling", but since they makers still include it, I'm going to guess it does serve some purpose. As for why all rifled slugs are also mass-forward designs: since the spin is imparted by airflow, something, such as a mass-forward design or an attached base, is required to keep the slug stable until it can begin to spin. scot 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- One more note...if it was in fact the case that mass-forward design was all that was stabilizing a rifled slug, you would expect it to tumble after it impacted and flattened out. Looking at the performance in ballistic geletin, you can see that the slug reaches full expansion (from 18 to 28 mm) only 5 cm into the gelatin, and continues on for 30 cm more in a straight line, coming to rest front forwards. That seems to be strong evidence that the slug had developed some spin before it hit the target. scot 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)