The .410 – world’s smallest shotgun calibre

[Ratel]

Ah Smelly, the Webley .410, I have one which I bought not long ago. Had one in my youth bought for £7-10/- from George Bates shop in Brum.
Last thing shot, half grown Wilfred at 25 yds in my garden with a fourlong cartridge 3 days ago.. Regularly shoot squirrels at the same distance.
Harriman must be getting a little senile I think as I whilst picking up watched a Hungarian gent some years ago (admittedly 3" cartridges) shooting pheasants using a pair of fourtens. These birds were 30-50 yds up and were being killed.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I see. But if lead-free ammunition is equivalent in performance and available for quarry, then it is logically indefensible to want to use lead ammunition on clay grounds or elsewhere. If you're arguing that there is no valid need to use lead ammunition for game, then there is no valid need to need it for anything else. You can't successfully argue to have it both ways......as you will discover to our cost as the legislative process rumbles on.

The key issue with lead shot is controlling the risks of birds ingesting it as grit. An evidence based approach is indeed complicated and should there be legislative proposals there could well be one-size fits all solutions mooted. As we have seen with calls to ban hunting trophy imports - the evidence went out the window soon after the consultations ended.

 

[Apthorpe]

The key issue with lead shot is controlling the risks of birds ingesting it as grit. An evidence based approach is indeed complicated and should there be legislative proposals there could well be one-size fits all solutions mooted. As we have seen with calls to ban hunting trophy imports - the evidence went out the window soon after the consultations ended.

No, it isn't. Nobody has any quantifiable handle on the risks of birds ingesting lead shot as grit outside wetlands. There are no proper studies with significant evidence. The key issue with lead shot is political. Either you take an evidence based approach, which shows that outside small and specific areas it is not generally harmful, or you argue from a scientifically illiterate position, unsupported by an adequate body of independent evidence, that it is generally harmful to wildlife.

We all know what this is. It's a tiny clique of anti-field sports activists lobbying for a ban on the basis of a very small amount of mostly spurious evidence, mainly compiled by themselves, riddled with methodological and basic scientific errors, which you have fallen into the trap of accepting as being sound science.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

No, it isn't. Nobody has any quantifiable handle on the risks of birds ingesting lead shot as grit outside wetlands. There are no proper studies with significant evidence. The key issue with lead shot is political. Either you take an evidence based approach, which shows that outside small and specific areas it is not generally harmful, or you argue from a scientifically illiterate position, unsupported by an adequate body of independent evidence, that it is generally harmful to wildlife.

We all know what this is. It's a tiny clique of anti-field sports activists lobbying for a ban on the basis of a very small amount of mostly spurious evidence, mainly compiled by themselves, riddled with methodological and basic scientific errors, which you have fallen into the trap of accepting as being sound science.

Yes, some people want nothing short of a complete ban on lead ammunition regardless of the evidence. Others want no change whatsoever. Some see the evidence as a conspiracy against shooting, yet this evidence is popping up all around the world and many countries are in process of a transition away from some uses of lead ammunition. Latest examples outside UK are lead restriction proposals being considered in EU and Australia. Maybe a worldwide conspiracy then. Perhaps take the time to read the document below for a full overview of the context, nuances etc of a complex policy issue from a UK perspective.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

 

[webley701]

Back on the subject of .410’s

A book I can recommend is ‘American & British 410 Shotguns’ by Ronald S Gabriel

 

[wanderer]

The good old Webley 410 bolt, full choke is mine.
A lot of fun.

 

[Apthorpe]

Yes, some people want nothing short of a complete ban on lead ammunition regardless of the evidence. Others want no change whatsoever. Some see the evidence as a conspiracy against shooting, yet this evidence is popping up all around the world and many countries are in process of a transition away from some uses of lead ammunition.

Of course it is. Why should this clique of activists restrict their activities to one country? The fact remains that it is the same body of evidence published by the same very small body of activists. This is not science. This is a small group of people publishing papers and lobbying politically.

Latest examples outside UK are lead restriction proposals being considered in EU and Australia. Maybe a worldwide conspiracy then. Perhaps take the time to read the document below for a full overview of the context, nuances etc of a complex policy issue from a UK perspective.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

Maybe consider the possibility that people have read all of the evidence, including the origins and citations in it. This stuff is produced by very few people, repeatedly citing each other and participating in and/or funded by anti-shooting lobby groups. Within the entire body of publications, there is very little actual evidence, very few observations, numerous methodological errors, and a lack of statistical reliability. Not only that, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to justify a lead ban over the countryside, when no harm was observed, no plausible means of toxicity proposed etc. etc. etc. The fact is that it was a gross error to accept the claims that this stuff is anything other than pseudo-science.

 

[Heym SR20]

There is a lot of rubbish spoken about the 410 and its killing power.

The individual pellets of No 6 shot out of a 410 move at the same velocity as those from a 12, 16 or 20 bore

There is less shot from a 410 so you need to keep ranges a bit shorter, and / or use a tighter choke, but provided you can hit a bid with a few pellets it will not have any issues with old age, or lack of adequate pension etc.

Challenge with a 410 is the smaller pattern which makes it more difficult to hit a clay or a live bird.

If you use a 410 and treat the head of any bird like a midi clay pigeon you can kill just as well as with a bigger gun. I shot my first (and only) canada goose with a 410. It was a single barrel Ward Patent by Army and Navy. It came over at tree top height, I swung through and it dropped stone dead. I was about 12 at the time. I have shot plenty of pigeons, a few ducks, phaesants, rabbits and squirrels with a similar single barrel, or my side by side WJ Jeffery.

And its my favourite gun to shoot clays with.

A 410 is often the tool of choice for farmers and small holders to kill cattle, pigs and sheep. A shot Cartridge to the brain is deadly.

And with slugs, where legal, plenty of deer sized game is killed every year. A 410 slug is about the same as a 44 or 41 magnum rifle or handgun in terms of effectiveness.

At the moment the only non lead cartridges are bismuth. In the US, Tungsten Matrix shot in a 410 is being used with great effect by Turkey hunters. One day manufacturers will introduce steel shot 410. I strongly suspect that such cartridges will perform just as well as lead, but suspect patterns will be tighter so a little harder to hit with.

I haven’t used Bismuth 410’s. I have made the personal choice to only use non toxic on any game that I shot and eat. So I am using a variety of 12 and 16s for live game shooting. 410 is for the clays.

I might buy a box of bismuth for use on woodcock. I have one oak woodland which does get woodcock. A potter with dog, a 410 and coming with a brace of woodcock every now and then will make a box last a few years.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Of course it is. Why should this clique of activists restrict their activities to one country? The fact remains that it is the same body of evidence published by the same very small body of activists. This is not science. This is a small group of people publishing papers and lobbying politically.

Maybe consider the possibility that people have read all of the evidence, including the origins and citations in it. This stuff is produced by very few people, repeatedly citing each other and participating in and/or funded by anti-shooting lobby groups. Within the entire body of publications, there is very little actual evidence, very few observations, numerous methodological errors, and a lack of statistical reliability. Not only that, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to justify a lead ban over the countryside, when no harm was observed, no plausible means of toxicity proposed etc. etc. etc. The fact is that it was a gross error to accept the claims that this stuff is anything other than pseudo-science.

Happy to agree to disagree. If you would like to consider studies and debate each in turn feel free to start a lead thread, its been a while since the last one!

 

[Liveonce]

Yes, some people want nothing short of a complete ban on lead ammunition regardless of the evidence. Others want no change whatsoever. Some see the evidence as a conspiracy against shooting, yet this evidence is popping up all around the world and many countries are in process of a transition away from some uses of lead ammunition. Latest examples outside UK are lead restriction proposals being considered in EU and Australia. Maybe a worldwide conspiracy then. Perhaps take the time to read the document below for a full overview of the context, nuances etc of a complex policy issue from a UK perspective.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

no mention in the document that I could find all steel shot is made in China unless you know different.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

no mention in the document that I could find all steel shot is made in China unless you know different.

As per last message feel free to start a new lead thread.

 

[webley701]

There is a lot of rubbish spoken about the 410 and its killing power.

The individual pellets of No 6 shot out of a 410 move at the same velocity as those from a 12, 16 or 20 bore

There is less shot from a 410 so you need to keep ranges a bit shorter, and / or use a tighter choke, but provided you can hit a bid with a few pellets it will not have any issues with old age, or lack of adequate pension etc.

Challenge with a 410 is the smaller pattern which makes it more difficult to hit a clay or a live bird.

If you use a 410 and treat the head of any bird like a midi clay pigeon you can kill just as well as with a bigger gun. I shot my first (and only) canada goose with a 410. It was a single barrel Ward Patent by Army and Navy. It came over at tree top height, I swung through and it dropped stone dead. I was about 12 at the time. I have shot plenty of pigeons, a few ducks, phaesants, rabbits and squirrels with a similar single barrel, or my side by side WJ Jeffery.

And its my favourite gun to shoot clays with.

A 410 is often the tool of choice for farmers and small holders to kill cattle, pigs and sheep. A shot Cartridge to the brain is deadly.

And with slugs, where legal, plenty of deer sized game is killed every year. A 410 slug is about the same as a 44 or 41 magnum rifle or handgun in terms of effectiveness.

At the moment the only non lead cartridges are bismuth. In the US, Tungsten Matrix shot in a 410 is being used with great effect by Turkey hunters. One day manufacturers will introduce steel shot 410. I strongly suspect that such cartridges will perform just as well as lead, but suspect patterns will be tighter so a little harder to hit with.

I haven’t used Bismuth 410’s. I have made the personal choice to only use non toxic on any game that I shot and eat. So I am using a variety of 12 and 16s for live game shooting. 410 is for the clays.

I might buy a box of bismuth for use on woodcock. I have one oak woodland which does get woodcock. A potter with dog, a 410 and coming with a brace of woodcock every now and then will make a box last a few years.

No. 6 shot is too large for best overall effect with a .410. It doesn’t give the best balance between pattern density / adequate pellet penetration / range.
A size or so smaller is better on balance.

 

[Liveonce]

As per last message feel free to start a new lead thread.

Was not looking to go over all what has been said many times, it was a direct question. Have BASC via its contacts with the cartridge manufactures learned of any other manufacture of steel shot other than that made in China? A Yes no will suffice.

 

[enfieldspares]

I replied on Pigeonwatch but I'll reply here also as the link to the article is posted here also.

And these shotgun cartridges 9mm RF, 7mm RF and .22 RF are they not smaller? In the gunroom in my father's house there were all three of the Webley bolt action shotguns the .410", the 9mm RF also stamped on the barrel, from memory, as "No 3 BORE" (?) and a .22" RF. The .22" RF in truth did less harm to what you shot it at then having them exposed to bad weather. Slightly less worse with later CCI .22" shotshells but the Eley ones were dismal.

I've also currently an AYA .410" No4 that I have had the stock extended to fit me. As per other responses to the topic I see no handicap with it firing 18 gram #7 in a 3" case as against a 28 bore gun firing the traditional 28 bore load of the same 18 gram #7 shot payload in a 2 1/2" case.

I have known Bill Harriman since his Welley & Dufty days and it truly pains me to say this, which I do with a heavy heart, but if the shared article is a reflection of his expertness on this calibre then I suggest he put his copy Greener's "The Gun" up for sale on the BBC's "Antiques Roadshow" and researches the modern .410" and cartridges available for it in this the 21st Century.

 

[Heym SR20]

No. 6 shot is too large for best overall effect with a .410. It doesn’t give the best balance between pattern density / adequate pellet penetration / range.
A size or so smaller is better on balance.

Wouldn’t disagree, but vast majority of cartridges use No 6 shot. However a 7 1/2 from 12, 16, 20 or a 410 all have same velocity and energy.

Lots of good arguments for using smaller shot in all of the different bores. Not convinced that shotguns really by pellets penetrating through to the organs and causing damage that way. Instead is more akin to smacking with a high velocity tennis racket and stunning / killing that way. Evidence to support - you often find pellets in the breast meat that have never made it through to the vitals, yet the bird (flying over head) is still dead in the air.

More hits with smaller pellets will result in more total impact energy, than fewer large ones.

In Denmark they shot a lot of Roe with shotguns. Range is kept to 25m. They are shot on the shoulder with No4 shot from a 12bore. Shot doesn’t penetrate the skin, but the impact energy kills them.

 

[enfieldspares]

Loaded with a true slug of the Brenneke type in a shotgun length barrel the .410" shotgun slug has a greater potential lethality than any .44" Magnum from any factory catalogued revolver. The video shows the Foster as the first fired, the Brenneke as the second fired.

 

[Apthorpe]

Wouldn’t disagree, but vast majority of cartridges use No 6 shot. However a 7 1/2 from 12, 16, 20 or a 410 all have same velocity and energy.

Lots of good arguments for using smaller shot in all of the different bores. Not convinced that shotguns really by pellets penetrating through to the organs and causing damage that way. Instead is more akin to smacking with a high velocity tennis racket and stunning / killing that way. Evidence to support - you often find pellets in the breast meat that have never made it through to the vitals, yet the bird (flying over head) is still dead in the air.

How is that evidence unless you also exclude the possibility of other pellets having struck the vitals?

More hits with smaller pellets will result in more total impact energy, than fewer large ones.

Obviously (to anyone who attended a maths lesson after their 9th birthday), this statement is not necessarily true. I just presented a sanitised version of the claim to a bright 8yr old accompanied by a shot size table. They saw the flaw in the argument at once. 9 pellets in size 7 will strike with less energy than 5 pellets in size 4. Not only that, but even for equivalent masses of lead the smaller pellets will strike with less energy at any range owing to their inferior ballistics.

In Denmark they shot a lot of Roe with shotguns. Range is kept to 25m. They are shot on the shoulder with No4 shot from a 12bore. Shot doesn’t penetrate the skin, but the impact energy kills them.

 

[enfieldspares]

In Denmark they shot a lot of Roe with shotguns. Range is kept to 25m. They are shot on the shoulder with No4 shot from a 12bore. Shot doesn’t penetrate the skin, but the impact energy kills them.

I think impact energy and its potential to be lethal is something still not really understood. The same as in the days of cannon people would be killed yet the bodies apparently unmarked by "wind of ball" from a close passing solid shot.

 

[Smellydog]

How is that evidence unless you also exclude the possibility of other pellets having struck the vitals?

Obviously (to anyone who attended a maths lesson after their 9th birthday), this statement is not necessarily true. I just presented a sanitised version of the claim to a bright 8yr old accompanied by a shot size table. They saw the flaw in the argument at once. 9 pellets in size 7 will strike with less energy than 5 pellets in size 4. Not only that, but even for equivalent masses of lead the smaller pellets will strike with less energy at any range owing to their inferior ballistics.

Shot has an accumulative effect that somehow defies pure so called energy calculus.
Multiple strikes works much better than less strikes irrespective of energy values within a narrow spectrum per species of bird or other.

 

[Triggermortis]

BASC believes that the use of lead shot for target shooting can continue on registered grounds where risks are controlled and there is already legislation in place to control risks to soils and water as per detailed in our response to last year's consultation on the HSE lead ammunition restriction proposals

There are no restrictions on the type of .410 cartridge used at the shooting ground where the event is taking place. The voluntary transition away from lead shot announced by nine organisations in 2020 is for the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting.

As you clearly state that a move away from lead is on a voluntary basis will BASC fight to maintain that state or support a legally binding lead ban when it comes?
Triggermortis