Velocity decay in Tru-Ball rifled slugs.

[Snowman366]

I was comparing the ballistics between Federal Cartridge's generic 12 gauge one-ounce foster slug loading, and their Tru-Ball one-ounce foster slug loading. Here's the ballistic chart on Federal's website. You can click and do a side-by-side comparision of the full-power standard and Tru-Ball slug loads. I compared load F127RS against load PB127RS:

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/ ... mpare.aspx

It looks like the velocity on the Tru-Ball rifled slug drops off at a significantly faster rate than the standard foster slug does. Has anyone noticed any practical difference in performance between the two loads? I've observed that a crosswind seems to effect the Tru-Ball round a little more than the generic slugs, especially at 50 yards and beyond.

I'm not sure where the supposed velocity loss goes. The mid-range trajectory, at least according to the factory's figures, shows little practical difference between the loads.

 

[Ripsnortr]

This is definately beyond my technical level currently. Stand tight and hopefully someone with more experience with this will chime in.

 

[MikeD]

I'm curious to know as well. Logically I would not think the minimal difference in muzzle volocities would account for as much difference down range (but I could be wrong). Makes me wonder if the ballistics coefficient of the two projectiles are more different then their physical appearance would indicate.

I'm pretty good at math but I'm not at all familiar with the formulas used to calcuilate ballistics. If no one else chimes in with more info I may try to do more research later (I'm at work now) and see what I can find out.

 

[nitesite]

This is definately beyond my technical level currently. Stand tight and hopefully someone with more experience with this will chime in.

I really don't know anyone who has more experience than Snowman366.

He's seen the elephant, been there and done that, and then some.

If he is curious about some ballistic table figures, well... then I guess I'll just wait him out and see what comes of it.

And if KJ needs some chrono numbers to plug in I'll gladly contribute with my own chrono findings!

 

[Rossignol]

Color me interested too!!!

 

[KentuckyWindage]

Color me interested too!!!

This!

 

[Snowman366]

I spoke on the phone yesterday with an old friend who's worked at Federal's operation in Anoka for almost 30 years. He couldn't believe the disparity in the numbers and wondered aloud if someobody in the R&D department hadn't perhaps plugged in the wrong figures. He is contacting R&D and said he'd let me know what they have to say about it. I'll advise as soon as I hear anything.

On another note, I spoke at length with a lieutenant at a large PD in Kansas. One of their officers used a low-recoil Tru-Ball round from a ghost-ring sighted Mossberg to instant collapse a violent felon with a pelvis hit at 48 yards. Suspect has survived the injury so far, but was completely hors de combat (as nightsite says) upon impact of the round. Punkin chunkin' at its best. Take their feet, or take their wind, i.e., break the pelvis...or destroy the air intake.

That sort of story, from defensive shooters or deer-hunters, is what made me wonder about the discrepancy in the ballistic figures. The end-users don't seem to be complaining about the Tru-Ball ammo.

 

[Rossignol]

I was finally just able to look at the charts side x side. It is pretty interesting lookin at it like that.

Practical differences?
I have no "real world" experience to speak of other than what I've done to test, group, or pattern ammo.

I prefer the low recoil TruBall, the PB127LRS or the Fed Tactical LEB127LRS (there is a new offering, the TruBall Deep Penetrator with copper jacket but thats another topic)

What I have seen while grouping and establishing holds on target, is that my hold for the full power stuff is always greater than low recoil loads. That seems to be fairly universal for any load I've fired through those guns. I have no idea if that means anaything with regard to what your lookin at though.