Overheard in a gunshop in France: a novel definition of a "grain"

OK then lads, here's a question we have sought the answer to for many years. Not bullets this time, so perhaps no one will know, but shotgun pellets.
Simple? Why is a No 6, or a 5 or a 7 or whatever given that designation? It, the number, means nothing - or, do the learned members on here know better? Add to that, that the French, since we have been talking about them, use different numbers as far as I recall. Metric designations have no relation to anything.
A very big HELP request chaps.

I had a look at a book published in 1856, written by Dr John Henry Walsh and it describes this:


SHOT.- The different kinds and sizes of shot are as follows, according to the list issued by Messrs.Walker and Parker, who are generally considered the first makers of the day:-

AA contains in the oz 40 pellets
A contains in the oz 50 pellets
BB contains in the oz 58 pellets
B contains in the oz 75 pellets
1 contains in the oz 82 pellets
2 contains in the oz 112 pellets
3 contains in the oz 135 pellets
4 contains in the oz 177 pellets
5 contains in the oz 218 pellets
6 contains in the oz 280 pellets
7 contains in the oz 341 pellets
8 contains in the oz 600 pellets
9 contains in the oz 984 pellets
10 contains in the oz 1726 pellets
Dust shot variable.


There is no mention of how "Messrs Walker and Parker" came to give these numbers to represent the number of pellets to the ounce. I am no mathematician but I can't see much of a pattern there either.
 
Sorry AN DU RU, I don't quite follow. Are you saying that shot size has to do with the 6th floor ( or the 7th,8th or 9th as appropriate) of the tower and thus shot size 5 is one floor down and so on. Assuming from that it doesn't fall so far and thus bigger pellets are formed?
 
View attachment 45265no all im saying is the size is secondary ,the lead falls then cools as it decends into cold water its then set no one determines the sizes ,they just then sort /sift /seive all the different sizes for the loading room they then ,i dont know how/why load them into whatever sizes they need ,?bear with me i will post a pic,winchesters shot tower
 
Last edited:
I remember someone telling me a useful method for remembering the diameter of numbered shot is simply to subtract the shot size from 17. The resulting answer is the diameter of the shot in hundredths of an inch. For example, #2 shot gives 17-2 = 15, meaning that the diameter of #2 shot is 15/100 or 0.15".
 
The numbers are arbitrary yes. They could have called it 32gr of .10" or 13 or eleventy but instead it's 32gr of 6 shot. Based on the usual gauge system ie small number=big diameter. But it doesn't have any history in it as to why the numbers are what they are.
As AS DU RU says, when they make 'em they just make lead balls and sort accordingly to tolerances.

As as for remembering the sizes. 17 minus the shot size only works with American sizes. For British sizes use 16. That give you the diameter in tenths of an inch eg 16-6=0.10", 16-2=0.14"
That equation works up to 2 shot. Then B is 0.15" and BB is 0.16"
or just print this off Shot Size Chart
 
Grain = English Imperial measuring system :thumb:

Gram = Roman catholic measuring system :-|

simples

you're wrong about the origin of the gram
It's a french revolutionary unit of measurement (the french revolution was a pretty god free zone).
 
you're wrong about the origin of the gram
It's a french revolutionary unit of measurement (the french revolution was a pretty god free zone).

...and if we consider the likely pre-Secession origins of the grain, reiver's whole Weltanschauung is called somewhat into question...
:eek:
 
Shotgun pellets, in lead, run by diameters:
12 = 0.05 inch
9 = 0.080 inch
8.5 = 0.085 inch
8 = 0.090 inch
7.5 = 0.95 inch etc
6 = 0110
5 = 0.120
4 = 0.130

Steel shot sort of tries to approximate the weight of lead shot by being larger,
6 = 0.11 inch
5 = 0.12 inch
4 = 0.13 inch ..to #1

Buckshot is
4 = 0.24 inch diameter
3 = 0.25 inch
1 = 0.30
0 = 0.32
00 = 0.34

Buckshot is not arbitrary; different pellet sizes stack up better in the shell in different gauges.

12 gauge = 12 balls = 1 pound
16 gauge = 16 balls = 1 pound of lead
etc

The metric system is not precise. Many "metric" dimensions are actually conversions from sensible English measurements.

An 8mm bullet is not 8mm. It is 7.92mm for IS, or 7.90mm for I ( prior to the 1905 standard ).
 
PM, and other linguists of the SD,

since it's likely to be a wet weekend...

If you were translating a story/novel set in a place/time where, for example, Imperial units of measurement were used, but doing so for a modern audience familiar only with the metric system, would you retain the original units for the sake of geographical/historical authenticity, or convert them for the sake of familiarity? Would the specific nature of the original place/time matter?
 
PM, and other linguists of the SD,

since it's likely to be a wet weekend...

If you were translating a story/novel set in a place/time where, for example, Imperial units of measurement were used, but doing so for a modern audience familiar only with the metric system, would you retain the original units for the sake of geographical/historical authenticity, or convert them for the sake of familiarity? Would the specific nature of the original place/time matter?

Use the Imperial measure. Never break character for the sake of an uneducated audience. The educated in the group will see it as a flaw in your work.

In the shooting vein, when I was young I watched "The Searchers" with John Wayne. The movie immediately tanked when I saw JW came home from the Civil War (1865) carrying an 1892 Winchester and a 1873 Colt. I thought, "What idiot wrote this??" ~Muir
 
The building trade over here went metric in 1971, but no one told them, you still buy 8ft x 4ft boards etc.
Very true about about the building trade .plans are often converted from metric back to imperial
when the building actually starts.
A few years ago the Eu wanted ply to come in 1200x2400 instead of 4f x 8ft which is marginally bigger.
But had to back down when the manufacturers in the far east said no to that as there USA market was far bigger
than Europe
 
Use the Imperial measure. Never break character for the sake of an uneducated audience. The educated in the group will see it as a flaw in your work.

Muir,

Beautifully put. Thankyou.

I too feel that writers should seek authenticity and readers should seek to learn what they don't already know, but your reasoning will help me to argue the point.
 
The building trade over here went metric in 1971, but no one told them, you still buy 8ft x 4ft boards etc.

Very true about about the building trade .plans are often converted from metric back to imperial
when the building actually starts.
A few years ago the Eu wanted ply to come in 1200x2400 instead of 4f x 8ft which is marginally bigger.
But had to back down when the manufacturers in the far east said no to that as there USA market was far bigger
than Europe

I don't think builders seem to use any measurement system at all, but then I always have to fit stuff after they have all left, and by the time all the trades from the digger-driver to the guy-polishing-the-door-handle-on-the-way-out have decided "that's near enough" the cumulative effect is definitely in inches rather than millimetres. :)

Before 1971 8 x 4 plywood always came in metric thicknesses….3, 9, 12, 15mm being the ones I remember. 9 being the odd one instead of 3/8" / 10mm but I guess the laminates were all 1mm and they were multiples of 3 ply…but then again we were mainly using the birch multi-ply fine layers rather than the coarser builders' shuttering stuff...

Alan

p.s. To all the builders on here, I am not implying that some of you are coarse, just the materials you use :)

Alan
 
Muir,

Beautifully put. Thankyou.

I too feel that writers should seek authenticity and readers should seek to learn what they don't already know, but your reasoning will help me to argue the point.

I agree with both of you, it is a matter of minutes to look up anything in a dictionary or encyclopaedia and seconds on line….strangely though in this specific context have you ever tried identifying Noah's cubits?

Alan
 
I don't think builders seem to use any measurement system at all, but then I always have to fit stuff after they have all left, and by the time all the trades from the digger-driver to the guy-polishing-the-door-handle-on-the-way-out have decided "that's near enough" the cumulative effect is definitely in inches rather than millimetres. :)

Before 1971 8 x 4 plywood always came in metric thicknesses….3, 9, 12, 15mm being the ones I remember. 9 being the odd one instead of 3/8" / 10mm but I guess the laminates were all 1mm and they were multiples of 3 ply…but then again we were mainly using the birch multi-ply fine layers rather than the coarser builders' shuttering stuff...

Alan

p.s. To all the builders on here, I am not implying that some of you are coarse, just the materials you use :)

Alan

Alan I remember it differently, ply was 1/4", 3/8" or 1" thick. It still is as far as I am concerned. :lol:
And I will also have you know that my father who was a carpenter and joiner of some repute for the accuracy of his work worked only in the thickness of fag papers nothing as course as a millimetre.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top