# 1700 FPS steel load!!!!



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

http://www.remington.com/pages/Hypersonic-Steel.aspx

The next great killing load! 1700 FPS! :shock: 
available in

12ga 3" 1700 1 1/8 2 
12ga 3" 1700 1 1/8 4 
12ga 3" 1700 1 1/4 BB 
12ga 3" 1700 1 1/4 1 
12ga 3" 1700 1 1/4 2 
12ga 3" 1700 1 1/4 4 
12ga 3 1/2" 1700 1 3/8 BB 
12ga 3 1/2" 1700 1 3/8 2 
12ga 3 1/2" 1700 1 3/8 4

Did I mention only 74 days to go? 8)


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I have seen these. Pretty cool. Is it just a proprietary wad design that allows it, or what?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Chaser said:


> I have seen these. Pretty cool. Is it just a proprietary wad design that allows it, or what?


It has something to do with the wad and primer/powder used. I heard they ran somewhere between $15 and $20 a box? wonder if that's true?


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Its a very cool concept with a wad that has one chamber of a couple of grains of powder that the primers ignites and starts the load moving and then the second main charge of powder ignites pushing the payload the rest of the way. It is very fast load for this large of a payload of shot. I am more for density of shot as opposed to speed so I won't waste the money on them but a very cool concept non the less. As far as the price I am hearing anywhere from $18 to $30 a box. The reports are that they have a good bit of recoil but even with the high speed they are getting surprisingly good patterns with them.


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

i bought box yesterday of #2 going to try them out . it cost me about 17 dollor a box . i am going pattern them soon weather cools off here in dixie.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Richard looks like you get a break sooner then me, 116 today. Man this place is hot. It is going to be strange hunting ducks wearing tank tops and shorts.


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

it was 109 here today hamernhonker hope fully it will cool off for u down there just think hunting short and tank top is okay .


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I will stick to the slower loads. Estates and Remington Sportsmans baby! hell yeah!


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

11% lead difference? Why not just aim 13" further ahead? I think when they hit 1550 FPS they reached the max that made a difference. :roll:


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I like the idea, but I will stick with my current 1550 fps loads from Kent. My problem is I practice my target shooting with 1250fps shells and shoot 1550 fps shells at waterfowl. It is hard enough to try and compensate from target shooting to waterfowl hunting.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> http://www.remington.com/pages/Hypersonic-Steel.aspx
> 
> The next great killing load! 1700 FPS! :shock:
> available in
> ...


how do these loads have the same velocities??? :?


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

stablebuck said:


> how do these loads have the same velocities??? :?


They change the amount of powder in the load.

I haven't shot these, but I've been shooting 1700-1780 fps loads for about 3-4 years now and they are very effective on ducks. Before I started reloading I shot the Kents 1550, but my reloads are superior to Kents in every way and I reload them for about $6 a box instead of $20.

Early reports on the remington load have 1 3/16oz charge instead of 1 1/4oz charge for the 3" load. Shouldn't surprise anyone. There is no reason to shoot anything other than the #4 load on ducks as it is good to a solid 45 yards. This will be a very popular load because it will be a very effective load. It is nice to see a new load based on science instead of marketing like the black magic cloud garbage.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.remington.com/pages/Hypersonic-Steel.aspx
> ...


Hell if I know, i just cut and pasted it off the site, maybe they change the powder in each one to keep the speed the same? I may pick up a box to try then again I already have a couple of doz cases of prefectly good steel loads.

I can tell you one thing i learned about those Black Clouds, they kill geese hard dead!


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Mojo1 said:


> I can tell you one thing i learned about those Black Clouds, they kill geese hard dead!


It isn't the uranus shaped shot killing the birds, it is the wad. If they would put all regular steel shot in the flight control wad, they would actually have a better product. They do have a good wad that keep the pattern tight.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Ha! He made you say uranus!
R


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I'd, and a grundle of others would pay $30+ dollar a box for 1700 fps shells. Thats totally awesome.

Move over Black Cloud, Dead Coyote, etc. here comes the next 80+ yard killer.


I'm going to sell my dekes to buy a scope for my skatter gun and more Black Cloud and and 1700 fps Remingtons. Who needs dekes when you can bust em' at great distances??

"Let 'em work?" Naw, my new motto is "Let em" have it."

Stupid ducks and geese, well, they are just that.....stupid. My new hope is that every duck and goose gets shot at no less than 300 times per week minimum. 
I want my birds to be edjumicated and wary of every decoy spread. Since I will be pass shooting without dekes, this will make it more of an advantage to me.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

1BandMan said:


> I'd, and a grundle of others would pay $30+ dollar a box for 1700 fps shells.


There is where you're wrong, the hunters you speak of only buy the $10 xperts because we all know that it is not what is inside of the shell that matters, but how many shells you leave on the dike that makes you a great hunter.

These are premium shells, I'll bet they are mostly used by the guys that shoot when the feet are down. For the guys thinking this is a replacement for their long range hevi shot loads, they are going to be disappointed. Of course, I may be wrong.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

toasty said:


> 1BandMan said:
> 
> 
> > I'd, and a grundle of others would pay $30+ dollar a box for 1700 fps shells.
> ...


The folks you speak of might be the ones forking out the cash for those premium shells, but if waterfowl are within 40 yards and the shot is placed right, the biggest of geese won't be flapping much after being hit with the box of $10 experts.

Hevi shot, Black Cloud, Hevi T shot Dead Coyote, and the new 1700 fps. Remingtons etc *might* come in handy for the light goose hunt, but for much else, I'm not sure who there marketed for other than guys that pass shoot with scopes (or should have scopes)on thier guns.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

the faster the shells are less knock down power. They will just fly right throu the ducks and geese. Just because they are faster don't mean you can shoot longer range.I will stay with my experts and kill ducks and geese just fine. Just hit them in the head and you don't have to worry about a thing.O yea by the way it not the shells it the shooter.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

1BandMan said:


> The folks you speak of might be the ones forking out the cash for those premium shells, but if waterfowl are within 40 yards and the shot is placed right, the biggest of geese won't be flapping much after being hit with the box of $10 experts.


I don't see hardly any premium shell casings among those littered on the dike and elsewhere. I see xperts, sportsmans and occasionally Kents. Pretty good evidence the dike busters are not shooting premium shells. Have you ever talked to those guys, they go straight for the lowest dollar shells and don't even know what hevi shot is. I'm with you on sky busters, but I maintain those guys are not shooting premium shells, especially hevi shot at $3 a shell.



dkhntrdstn said:


> the faster the shells are less knock down power. They will just fly right throu the ducks and geese. Just because they are faster don't mean you can shoot longer range.I will stay with my experts and kill ducks and geese just fine. Just hit them in the head and you don't have to worry about a thing.O yea by the way it not the shells it the shooter.


Wrong on all accounts. Faster shot of the same size has more energy than slower shot. Ducks die due to penetration of a given diameter. Shot that passes through a bird kills a bird better than shot that doesn't. Faster shot has more penetration and energy than slower shot for longer distances and therefore has longer range. It is the shooter to get the shot on target, but the shot is critical in bringing down a bird. Do you shoot #7 steel shot at geese? I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

a


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> toasty said:
> 
> 
> > but you have no idea what you're talking about.
> ...


Actually Toasty is a pro and I believe just finished writing a fantastic ballistics program for shot shooters. http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26900 I have not used the program, but those I know and trust who have looked at it or the data from it, think it is great.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

t


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

:O•-:


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Back to the original topic. I fully plan on testing some of the new Rem loads for geese. I shoot too many shells at ducks to pay what they want, but geese on the other hand. I think one box will get me through patterning tests and the next 3 hunting seasons.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

h


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Joel Draxler said:


> Actually Toasty is a pro and I believe just finished writing a fantastic ballistics program for shot shooters. http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26900 I have not used the program, but those I know and trust who have looked at it or the data from it, think it is great.


Thanks for the nice words. I've spent hundreds of hours on shotshell ballistics and shotshell reloading and learn new stuff every day from a lot of great people. A lot of guys are stuck into the "how it should be done" mode and refuse to accept change even when it is for the better. Guys shooting slow stuff in cheap shells, stuck in their ways, will still continue to shoot it. The guys with an open mind will give it a try. They won't take longer shots, they will just have fewer cripples and be more patient for a better shot because they have a better load.

dkhntrdstn has contributed a lot the forum and though I don't know him, by many accounts is a decent guy. Just had to point out the spewing of incorrect information so those looking for a better shell wouldn't be mislead.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't know what would happen if I shot a shell at 1700 fps, I would probably just miss I guess. I've been shooting the same old reload recipe for many, many years. It is probably at about 1300 fps and it kills ducks really well (up close). I doubt my old crappy reloads would do well on distant birds, but for decoying ducks I'm not real convinced you need much more than that. 
R


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Dang we need duck season to get here boys. The excitement is definitely building. Dustin, Toasty is a great guy who I have hunted with and has a lot of great knowledge about shotgunning. Just the same although you and I have never had a chance to meet I really enjoy conversing with you and think you are a great guy. Non of us will ever fully agree on speeds, density and patterns but if it works for you or me or toasty in the field and birds are dropping dead because we took the time to make sure our tools are producing humane kills then the job is getting done and we should be happy with that.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

rjefre said:


> I don't know what would happen if I shot a shell at 1700 fpsR


Duck season really needs to get here!!!!

R, I don't know what will happen either but soon a I find a box of those hyper shells, I'm gonna find out! :lol:


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

A faster load will actually loose velocity, more rapidly than a slower load. That would make this load a "non-candidate" for a long range shell. But at normal shotgunning range, the increased velocity will provide more effective energy transferred to the target.
In my opinion the biggest benefit here is the decreased lead needed at normal shotgunning ranges. More velocity, and the need for less lead, will most likely lead to more ducks being shot in the head, instead of the backside, most likely increasing kill rates in the short term. But humans being humans, eventually most will revert back to bad habits that they have instilled over years and years and eventually even that small advantage will be negated.
I am huge believer in the mantra, "Speed Kills", but I also think there is a limit to amount of technology that the "average" waterfowler, can put to good use. 
Most likely for me, I won't switch, but there again, I haven't had a ton of problems. I suppose if I was going to be pass shooting (real pass shooting, meaning non-decoying birds, but still inside of 45 yards), it might be worth a shot.
Good luck to those who try this new product. I sincerely hope it brings you increased success and more birds in the bag.
Later,
Kev


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

What kev said is correct. Higher velocity loses velocity faster. Just because it is marketed at 1700 fps at the muzzle, doesn't mean that your range is extended. 600 fps is how fast shot must be traveling at time of striking the bird to achieve adequate penetration for a killing shot. Often this happens between 45 and 55 yards for popular loads. The velocity of the shot when it reaches the bird is what counts. If you shoot ducks at 25 yards your shot could be going at least twice as fast as shot hitting ducks at 40 yards. Once you get to 1700 fps, the gain in downrange velocity really tapers off. It's just physics. Starting out 150 fps faster at the muzzle equates to being about 30 fps faster at 40 yrds. The gain of shorter flight time inside normal ranges will shorten your lead, though. 
I have been reloading steel for 15 years. My pet load is 1 ounce of #3 or #4 steel at 1500 fps. Out to 40 yards it is a proven winner for me. I shoot it at ducks over decoys in the 20-30 yards range and it performs well enough that I don't feel the need for a 1700 fps shell. 
The new 1700 fps load will be more effective at normal shooting distances,I'm sure, but nothing will be gained for longer distances. If you want a long range load you must change shot material to something more dense than steel. Like Scotty from Star Trek said "you can't change the laws of physics".


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

kev said:


> A faster load will actually loose velocity, more rapidly than a slower load. That would make this load a "non-candidate" for a long range shell. But at normal shotgunning range, the increased velocity will provide more effective energy transferred to the target.
> In my opinion the biggest benefit here is the decreased lead needed at normal shotgunning ranges. More velocity, and the need for less lead, will most likely lead to more ducks being shot in the head, instead of the backside, most likely increasing kill rates in the short term.


Kev hit this one on the head, this isn't a long range shell, it is a more effective shell assuming it patterns decent. Most of us are not very good at determining leads on birds. There are so many variables involved like angle of the bird, speed of the bird, velocity and size of the shot, weight of the gun, we just aren't very good at this unless we have thousands of hours practicing. What would take 10 minutes to calculate on paper, we have to evaluate in a second and apply to the situation and then we almost never practice with our duck hunting loads.

I've seen a few guys that were born with a natural ability to determine lead, but for every guy out there that is good at it, there are 99 of us that suck at it. This load could help a lot of hunters by reducing cripples. The only thing I disagree with the post on is that I don't think that we all revert back hitting ducks in the backside.

Having said all of that, I went to fast loads so I could drop down a pellet size and improve my pattern density. Going from a #3 at 1550 to a #4 at 1730, the energy is the same for the pellets, but I get an extra 30 pellets in #4 the pattern. Not a big deal for mallards, but makes a huge difference for those speedy little teal and buffleheads. I started shoot #5s at 1790 fps 2 years ago, while not my favorite load, I almost as much energy as a #3 at 1550 but I have 243 pellets in the pattern vs 173. It dropped mallard stone dead at 40 yards, and was the perfect early season teal load.

The shorter lead and increased pattern density are the two virtues of faster loads. You can also select a little bit more range, but I think this is secondary.



woollybugger said:


> 600 fps is how fast shot must be traveling at time of striking the bird to achieve adequate penetration for a killing shot.... Starting out 150 fps faster at the muzzle equates to being about 30 fps faster at 40 yrds.


Woolly was right on with the 30 fps at 45 yards however, with the same shot size it translates to 4 extra yards which could be an extra bird or two on tough days. The 600 fps rule is at best a crude approximation, it is applicable for only a few different shot sizes and materials. There are far more accurate ways to evaluate loads such as penetration and energy density.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I picked up a box tonight at Sportsman's; $19.99 a box for 3" #2's.


----------

