So it’s steel 2’s for pheasants.

[Dunwaters]

There, looked through it quickly and yeah pretty much agree with everything.
You see, I have done a bit, including using steel, soft iron actually and yes, it does work.

I think you sir are missing my gripe, I don't like being told lead is bad and possibly being forced to eat something that may have iron pellets in it. One it could break a tooth and two, if it lingers in the gut, fester.
I personally hate when a bird is wounded and to wound with a substance that it's body can not isolate, unlike lead, is unacceptable to me.
Their use of plastic wads is also unacceptable.
The so called bio wads take to long and no one knows what the residue is capable of!

If I didn't care about the game I would not argue against it so much. I would simply chop my guns up and buy something steel proof and fire away, but I do care, and I observe. Based on my observations I'm entitled to my opinion.
Re "trusting the science", I do, but it depends on firstly, who is paying the scientist!!

You on the other hand please do whatever makes you happy

The article is neutral on different shot types, it merely reports results, which I find interesting.
As for lead bans or use, it seems to me to be quite a bit more complex than I imagined, I’ve given up using it in the centre fires there’s no acceptable alternative in the rimfire and I have no problem using alternatives in the shotgun when it’s available. Currently it’s not.
As for the scientists and who pays them, I can’t see that it matters.
Every single one who has investigated has concluded that lead shot in particular has secondary effects on wildlife when ingested.
And that’s why you won’t be left alone to carry on as you see fit.

 

[StephenToast]

A lead ban is coming. Whether you, we or anyone agrees or likes it or not.

The debate isn't if it's when.

You have two choices, try what is available now so that you are better informed when lead is banned, or maybe even be using non- lead before it is banned, or bury your head in the sand and stick your bottom lip out like a petulant child and be caught with your pants down when lead is eventually banned.

 

[Heym SR20]

A good article. Fundamentally steel is no different to any other shot type. Have a good dense even pattern and put the bird in the middle of it.

But in the field I do see a lot of very poor shots. Especially when ducks are involved. Huge number of shells fired at ducks that are well out of range, ditto with other game birds. Cartridges are blamed, so too are the guns, when actually its lack of skill and appreciation of the limited range of a shotgun. And lets face it game shooting is expensive and not many can truly become masters of it.

Personally I am finding the latest generations of steel shot to be more than capable in my guns. I pick my shots and they kill as well as lead used to. I avoid the temptation of the longer shoot and hope type shots, nor do I like going away shots. Make sure you have a clear shot at the head and put it in centre of pattern.

I am not convinced shotguns kill by penetration, I think it kills by slapping the bird out of the sky and stunning it. A greater volume of smaller shot (within reason) is in my view better than larger sized shot.

And steel is no different to lead. In the old days 1oz of No 6 was optimal. Going up to 1 1/8oz just resulted in more recoil and less good patterns.

 

[Smellydog]

I am not convinced shotguns kill by penetration, I think it kills by slapping the bird out of the sky and stunning it.

Absolutely. The accumulative effect of multiple strikes is what does it.
Not because a single pellet struck a vital organ but that can and does happen.

 

[Tony Morgan]

bury your head in the sand and stick your bottom lip out like a petulant child and be caught with your pants down when lead is eventually banned.

Let's see..... 'head in sand, lip stuck out, pants down'. Mixed metaphors for contortionists only?

 

[Liveonce]

do consider that the article is written from the American view point, different shot sizes to U.K./EU and different cartridge standards CIP/SAAMI and very likely shot using a semi auto.

 

[Ferretlurcher70]

Well put smellydog

 

[enfieldspares]

I am not convinced shotguns kill by penetration, I think it kills by slapping the bird out of the sky and stunning it.

Absolutely. The accumulative effect of multiple strikes is what does it.
Not because a single pellet struck a vital organ but that can and does happen.

This is what Payne-Gallwey eventually suggested in his book "High Pheasants" in 1913 in which he advocates but 1 ounce of lead #7 in a gun bored improved cylinder. He said that the multiple pellets (unless a vital part was struck) stunned the bird and the impact of its fall then killed it. Yet this was a very different view from his earlier "Letter to Young Shooters" in 1890 in which his suggested load then was 1 1/8 ounce of #5. So even back then folk changed their belief in the optimal load and size of shot.

 

[Kersnow]

Two pals of mine use nothing but 36g no3 Eley Lightening on the shore and get more plenty of duck and geese with this load.

Pheasant shooters are obsessed with uber high birds and the kill ratios with lead are currently poor - but this obsession will get shooting being regulated aka Wales at he mo

 

[Dunwaters]

do consider that the article is written from the American view point, different shot sizes to U.K./EU and different cartridge standards CIP/SAAMI and very likely shot using a semi auto.

The research is indeed American, but the results are easily translated for UK or European use, adjust the shot sizes from US to British or whatever and translate yards to meters.
The birds are the same.
The conclusions stand, for all tested shot types including lead. The tests are not biased in favour of any particular shot type, all were subjected to blind impartial examination in side by side tests and the results tabulated to give a series of recommendations for shot size based on expected ranges and target species.
Whats not to like?
Whats interesting to me is the fact that it debunks a couple of shotgunnings most treasured ballistic myths, smaller deadlier patterns from small bores, for example and the current favourite of cartridge manufacturers, particularly for clays, lower weight shot charges at higher velocity give better patterns for consistent kills at long range.

 

[timbrayford]

The article is neutral on different shot types, it merely reports results, which I find interesting.
As for lead bans or use, it seems to me to be quite a bit more complex than I imagined, I’ve given up using it in the centre fires there’s no acceptable alternative in the rimfire and I have no problem using alternatives in the shotgun when it’s available. Currently it’s not.
As for the scientists and who pays them, I can’t see that it matters.
Every single one who has investigated has concluded that lead shot in particular has secondary effects on wildlife when ingested.
And that’s why you won’t be left alone to carry on as you see fit.

Only a scientist would deliberately feed lead shot to wild game!

 

[Dunwaters]

Only a scientist would deliberately feed lead shot to wild game!

Not so, there’s quite a few people doing it at the moment, most of whom are in complete denial of the impact of their actions.
They are frequently quite vociferous and intransigent, there are numerous threads on this site that illustrate the point.

 

[Liveonce]

The research is indeed American, but the results are easily translated for UK or European use, adjust the shot sizes from US to British or whatever and translate yards to meters.
The birds are the same.
The conclusions stand, for all tested shot types including lead. The tests are not biased in favour of any particular shot type, all were subjected to blind impartial examination in side by side tests and the results tabulated to give a series of recommendations for shot size based on expected ranges and target species.
Whats not to like?
Whats interesting to me is the fact that it debunks a couple of shotgunnings most treasured ballistic myths, smaller deadlier patterns from small bores, for example and the current favourite of cartridge manufacturers, particularly for clays, lower weight shot charges at higher velocity give better patterns for consistent kills at long range.

indeed but they do not shoot many fine english game guns they tend to use magnum semi autos.

you need both pattern and terminal energy to reliably and humanely kill, one with out the other is not a lot of unless you call it a rifle.

 

[timbrayford]

Not so, there’s quite a few people doing it at the moment, most of whom are in complete denial of the impact of their actions.
They are frequently quite vociferous and intransigent, there are numerous threads on this site that illustrate the point.

So why would anyone do it, what does it achieve?

 

[Dunwaters]

So why would anyone do it, what does it achieve?

Sorry I was being facetious.
I’m not aware of any study that involved deliberately feeding lead shot to birds, however there are quite a few dealing with the effects of lead shot ingestion by wild bird populations, essentially anything with a gizzard is prone to picking up the spent shot and swallowing it.
Birds of prey are also very sensitive to lead, they ingest it by eating wounded animals or scavenging carcasses
My tongue in cheek comment was a wee pop at those amongst us who believe that all the research is wrong and that they personally should be allowed to continue as they have been for the past XX decades.

 

[timbrayford]

Sorry I was being facetious.
I’m not aware of any study that involved deliberately feeding lead shot to birds, however there are quite a few dealing with the effects of lead shot ingestion by wild bird populations, essentially anything with a gizzard is prone to picking up the spent shot and swallowing it.
Birds of prey are also very sensitive to lead, they ingest it by eating wounded animals or scavenging carcasses
My tongue in cheek comment was a wee pop at those amongst us who believe that all the research is wrong and that they personally should be allowed to continue as they have been for the past XX decades.

Yes but away from the relatively long lived birds like geese on wetlands where is the evidence that short lived birds in farms and woodlands live long enough for clinical symptoms to develop? As for BOPs the massive increase in their populations from the late 20th century onwards indicates that lead shot is not endangering them

 

[Dalua]

Absolutely. The accumulative effect of multiple strikes is what does it.
Not because a single pellet struck a vital organ but that can and does happen.

It is a theory one reads - but if it were correct, why would one need larger shot for larger quarry?
Payne-Gallwey's ounce of 7s on the front end of a 40yd pheasant would very likely kill by brain/neck damage.
I find the idea than multiple 'hits' bring a bird down without damaging any part necessary to life or flight rather peculiar.

 

[Smellydog]

I have, unscientifically, observed ducks and geese feeding. They have a very sensitive bill and tongue, they know, in my opinion exactly what they are picking up. If they didn't they would not be able to distinguish nutrition from dirt!.
I also was of the belief that when lead over wetlands and for shooting ducks and geese in England over two decades ago we were going to see so much more ducks and geese, we are not though!
And yes, I do recall American scientists feeding lead to ducks!

 

[Smellydog]

It is a theory one reads - but if it were correct, why would one need larger shot for larger quarry?
Payne-Gallwey's ounce of 7s on the front end of a 40yd pheasant would very likely kill by brain/neck damage.
I find the idea than multiple 'hits' bring a bird down without damaging any part necessary to life or flight rather peculiar.

Who told you you need larger shot for larger quarry? How much larger is larger? How large is the larger quarry.

You here folk recommending magnum loads for fox. An ounce of #5 or#4 will do my nicely thank you.
Multiple strikes to heads and necks is as humane as one through the heart.
American Turkey hunters aim for the head and neck, the way the British go about it they'd probably use SG!

 

[Dalua]

Who told you you need larger shot for larger quarry? How much larger is larger? How large is the larger quarry.
Multiple strikes to heads and necks is as humane as one through the heart.

A single strike to the head/neck or heart/lungs will kill if it (by penetration, presumably) causes sufficient damage. I guess that's where the idea of using bigger shot for larger quarry comes from: bigger quarry needing more penetration to get through to the vital bits.
7s for snipe/pigeon, 6 or 5 for ducks and pheasants, 5 for rabbits, 4 for hares (if I still shot them) 3 for geese - something like that?

If it was all down to just tickling the quarry all over with multiple strikes so it drops out of the air without anything other than superficial wounds, would one not use 7s (or 9s, even) for everything - and not mind about the lamentable ballistic properties of soft iron when used as shot?