Extreme high pheasants

[magman]

never needed more than 34grm Max 4s

We get some good birds on the crown shoot out to 60 yrds and only use 30grm 6s and it does the job if you do .

As OF says stick to what your used to and enjoy your day and learn from it

 

PS, just expect your average to go down

[figgy]

I have dropped 65 yard pheasants with 25g of 6 shot stone dead. A week later on a different shoot failed to drop birds that were hit hard and rattled with 28g of 5shot. Depends where the shot hits, if it hits vitals their dead.

[Stonepark]

I have dropped 65 yard pheasants with 25g of 6 shot stone dead. A week later on a different shoot failed to drop birds that were hit hard and rattled with 28g of 5shot. Depends where the shot hits, if it hits vitals their dead.

 

Both of those would average 60ish pellets in a 30 inch circle, with 0.5ftlbs and 0.85ftlbs and able to penetrate 1.2 inch and 2 inch. respectively at 65 yards.

 

Each bird would only be hit with on average out of a normal full choke with 1 pellet!

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stonepark

[fenboy]

 

Both of those would average 60ish pellets in a 30 inch circle, with 0.5ftlbs and 0.85ftlbs and able to penetrate 1.2 inch and 2 inch. respectively at 65 yards.

 

Each bird would only be hit with on average out of a normal full choke with 1 pellet!

I pellet will kill it though , maths kills nothing

[scotslad]

Don't want to derail the thread so please move if i am.

 

But i've never really bought into the more penetration theory, agree with the science a larger pellet will penetrate deeper than lighter esp at distance. No argument there, the science makes sense just not sure it increase 'killing' power/range.

 

But when was the last time u plucked a birds and found pellets that had actually penetrated right through the breast meat and throu the breast bone to strike an organ?

I generally only shoot on shoots with average birds or walked up shooting but even at those realatively shortish ranges usually pellets are lodged in the breast meat itself. When a bird comes down dead its been hit in the head. Althou some pellets will get in around armpits or gizzard areas

 

Can always remeber a hen shot a few years ago now on my wee syndicate. Shot in the beating line would only be 20m shot from behind a lots of feather come down like a sack of spuds, would be 6-8 dogs into area pretty quick as was the end of a drive, never found it, gave up on it, my spaniel bogged off as we we're al blethering and pegged it 50m down the fence line outside the wood. The bird must have travelled 80 odd m and was hit very very hard at close range with a fair few pellets yet none penetrated throu its back to hit its spine or vitals

 

Don't get me wrong seem birds when picking up fly on as thou not hit only to drop stone dead 2-300 m back (must be a heart/lung shot?) or tower a long way back (say thats a lung shot) In fact next time i pick 1 i'm going to mark it and give it a PM to see

 

But i do find it intresting sometimes to mark a really high bird that came down stone dead, take it home and pluck it to see where the kill pellet was, almost always 1 to head/neck area

[Underdog]

Don't want to derail the thread so please move if i am.

 

But i've never really bought into the more penetration theory, agree with the science a larger pellet will penetrate deeper than lighter esp at distance. No argument there, the science makes sense just not sure it increase 'killing' power/range.

 

But when was the last time u plucked a birds and found pellets that had actually penetrated right through the breast meat and throu the breast bone to strike an organ?

I generally only shoot on shoots with average birds or walked up shooting but even at those realatively shortish ranges usually pellets are lodged in the breast meat itself. When a bird comes down dead its been hit in the head. Althou some pellets will get in around armpits or gizzard areas

 

Can always remeber a hen shot a few years ago now on my wee syndicate. Shot in the beating line would only be 20m shot from behind a lots of feather come down like a sack of spuds, would be 6-8 dogs into area pretty quick as was the end of a drive, never found it, gave up on it, my spaniel bogged off as we we're al blethering and pegged it 50m down the fence line outside the wood. The bird must have travelled 80 odd m and was hit very very hard at close range with a fair few pellets yet none penetrated throu its back to hit its spine or vitals

 

Don't get me wrong seem birds when picking up fly on as thou not hit only to drop stone dead 2-300 m back (must be a heart/lung shot?) or tower a long way back (say thats a lung shot) In fact next time i pick 1 i'm going to mark it and give it a PM to see

 

But i do find it intresting sometimes to mark a really high bird that came down stone dead, take it home and pluck it to see where the kill pellet was, almost always 1 to head/neck area

+1.

My highest bird was shot #7 from a muzzloader.

Three pellets in the neck. Dead in the air. Hit the ground 100yds behind me.

Doubt I had a 1000fps to start with!

 

Alot of misconception about "pellet energy" is banded about!

[Smokersmith]

I pellet will kill it though , maths kills nothing

If you're stood there with the dead bird ... you're single pellet argument looks great.

 

If you're relying on that single pellet at 50+ yards (or any range), I would say that you are relying on luck.

 

In this case, for me ... when I put the gun in the right place, I want maths on my side.

[fenboy]

If you're stood there with the dead bird ... you're single pellet argument looks great.

 

If you're relying on that single pellet at 50+ yards (or any range), I would say that you are relying on luck.

 

In this case, for me ... when I put the gun in the right place, I want maths on my side.

I don't disagree but for someone to sit in an armchair and say a particular pheasant would only have been hit with a single pellet because the maths say so is a different thing altogether .

We know a pattern plate does not tell us the full story regarding shot string etc .

While I would not recommend shooting at 65 yard pheasants with 25 grams of 6 shot I would not like to guess at how many pellets that load would put in a pheasant at that range given all the variables their can be.

Edited December 7, 2015 by fenboy

[Vince Green]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.

[CharlieT]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.

 

You really need to get out more, change your feet to yards and you're starting to get there !!

[Underdog]

Hey, I'm a ***, woohoo.

[EdSolomons]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.

I'll have to pull you up on that one..!

[welshwarrior]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.

Got to say I disagree there on hieght, however I agree most people distance judging is poor.

Edited December 7, 2015 by welshwarrior

[Stonepark]

The maths for a shotgun pattern are only an average and as such do not represent every shot within a normalised distribution curve.

 

Clearly the extremes (i.e. connecting with successive 65 yard birds and killing them one day and rattling them hard but not killing them another day) are subject to chance as they fall outwith the 95% confidence level.

 

The question is then, taking into account the 'respect' for the quarry and moral duty to minimise wounding do you feel comfortable chancing it?

 

I push my 410 to its limits, but know where those are and my number of wounded to kills is low, with very few being hit and flying on to die later.

[dougall]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.

''an extremely high pheasant is 70 ft''......that would be 23 yards..........there are now many shoots which put birds over that are out of range,it is down to each gun to select what they wish to shoot at/are capable of shooting...I have seen pheasant over 300 foot high so your no pheasant ever flies over 40 yards is sir utter tosh.Sure shoots need to use valleys/topography but in the last 15 years or so there are vast number of estates which put on genuinely extreme birds and that means these days 200 foot plus and you no longer have to go to Devon/Somerset either......a 70 ft bird is a very average shoots average bird it is'nt high let alone extremely high........

[JDog]

An extremely high pheasant is about 70ft up, no pheasant is higher than 40yds, they look like they are up on the edge of the stratosphere but they are not as high as you think, ordinary game loads were used for high pheasants by the nobs for decades.[/quot

 

Tosh.

[casts_by_fly]

Don't want to derail the thread so please move if i am.

 

But i've never really bought into the more penetration theory, agree with the science a larger pellet will penetrate deeper than lighter esp at distance. No argument there, the science makes sense just not sure it increase 'killing' power/range.

 

But when was the last time u plucked a birds and found pellets that had actually penetrated right through the breast meat and throu the breast bone to strike an organ?

I generally only shoot on shoots with average birds or walked up shooting but even at those realatively shortish ranges usually pellets are lodged in the breast meat itself. When a bird comes down dead its been hit in the head. Althou some pellets will get in around armpits or gizzard areas

 

Can always remeber a hen shot a few years ago now on my wee syndicate. Shot in the beating line would only be 20m shot from behind a lots of feather come down like a sack of spuds, would be 6-8 dogs into area pretty quick as was the end of a drive, never found it, gave up on it, my spaniel bogged off as we we're al blethering and pegged it 50m down the fence line outside the wood. The bird must have travelled 80 odd m and was hit very very hard at close range with a fair few pellets yet none penetrated throu its back to hit its spine or vitals

 

Don't get me wrong seem birds when picking up fly on as thou not hit only to drop stone dead 2-300 m back (must be a heart/lung shot?) or tower a long way back (say thats a lung shot) In fact next time i pick 1 i'm going to mark it and give it a PM to see

 

But i do find it intresting sometimes to mark a really high bird that came down stone dead, take it home and pluck it to see where the kill pellet was, almost always 1 to head/neck area

 

5's at moderate range will penetrate through both sides of breast meat and the breastbone with all organs between if it doesn't featherball. I find a few most shoot days that have that happen. You absolutely need enough pellet energy to penetrate into the chest cavity as you are going to hit the body much more frequently than you will hit the head. It is just a bigger target and the law of averages says that the distribution of pellets will do it.

 

If you want to bring a bird down stone dead, you have to hit the CNS. A pellet to the head or neck is instant 'down'. A shot to the wing will bring the bird down, but if you don't drop a leg too (or have one in the body) then it will be a runner. If you only put pellets in the body, then you better put a couple in the body and of sufficient energy to penetrate organs. Even then, a body hit bird will continue to fly for some time and you will have a job to pick it.

 

For rough shooting, you're generally shooting birds going away. In that case you have to remember that the feathers on a pheasant's back will slow down a pellet tremendously so you should upsize a little, especially late in the season. Driven birds are showing you much of their vitals while going away birds are showing practically none directly. The bird you reference above being hit 'hard' was probably hit in the back end. There would have been good pellet density as it was close range, but you won't penetrate from the rear end to the vitals. You'll knock off a ton of feathers doing it though and it will look magnificent in the air- then the bird starts running as you found out. If you'd have been shooting 4's then you'd have had some pellets penetrate up into the body cavity. Alternatively, shoot further in front of the bird.

 

thanks

rick

[Underdog]

 

5's at moderate range will penetrate through both sides of breast meat and the breastbone with all organs between if it doesn't featherball. I find a few most shoot days that have that happen. You absolutely need enough pellet energy to penetrate into the chest cavity as you are going to hit the body much more frequently than you will hit the head. It is just a bigger target and the law of averages says that the distribution of pellets will do it.

 

If you want to bring a bird down stone dead, you have to hit the CNS. A pellet to the head or neck is instant 'down'. A shot to the wing will bring the bird down, but if you don't drop a leg too (or have one in the body) then it will be a runner. If you only put pellets in the body, then you better put a couple in the body and of sufficient energy to penetrate organs. Even then, a body hit bird will continue to fly for some time and you will have a job to pick it.

 

For rough shooting, you're generally shooting birds going away. In that case you have to remember that the feathers on a pheasant's back will slow down a pellet tremendously so you should upsize a little, especially late in the season. Driven birds are showing you much of their vitals while going away birds are showing practically none directly. The bird you reference above being hit 'hard' was probably hit in the back end. There would have been good pellet density as it was close range, but you won't penetrate from the rear end to the vitals. You'll knock off a ton of feathers doing it though and it will look magnificent in the air- then the bird starts running as you found out. If you'd have been shooting 4's then you'd have had some pellets penetrate up into the body cavity. Alternatively, shoot further in front of the bird.

 

thanks

rick

You sound like you have forgotten the golden rules of how shot guns work!

They work by accumulative effects from multiple strikes, not individual pellet energy.

 

I will stick to numerous pellet strikes as in my actual experience it is no worse and due to a huge pellet count difference I increase the odds for head and neck strikes which by default also don't need that much energy! :-)

[fenboy]

A interesting article in the field.

 

http://www.fieldsportsmagazine.com/Shooting-Pheasants/far-away-pheasants.html

[Konnie]

Very interesting, makes you wander how you calculate that all in a split second, or is it all luck and some are lucky all the time.

[JohnfromUK]

A interesting article in the field.

 

http://www.fieldsportsmagazine.com/Shooting-Pheasants/far-away-pheasants.html

A good article. I have related before that a friend who is by most standards a very good shot was invited on a 'very high bird' shoot. In talking afterwards, asked if he had enjoyed it, the response was muted - not really. The reason - he had (along with virtually all the other guns) - missed a lot - and was concious that he was almost certainly putting in pellets without a kill. As a good sportsman, it upset him.

 

There may well be a very few 'George Digweeds' who can reliably and consistently kill at extreme range - but I would lay odds that the majority of us will either have a lot of clean misses - which is no fun, or worse, a lot of pricked birds - which is unsporting and not good for anyone.

 

When I read earlier in this thread people talking about 60 - 90m as 'high birds'. My view is that to shoot at 90m bird with a 12 cannot be sporting - probably not for anyone, but certainly not unless the shooter is a very exceptional shot indeed.

 

I would like to think that I (and most 'normal' shots) would judge a 60m plus (in my case a good deal less) bird as 'out of shot' (unless of course already pricked - in which case any reasonable effort to complete the kill should be a good thing).

Edited December 7, 2015 by JohnfromUK

[JDog]

I said that 60- 90m birds were 'extreme' not 'high'.

 

I have seen birds 90m high and I have seen idiots shooting at them. None were shot dead. None were likely to be shot dead at that range.

 

On one drive I witnessed in Devon there was hardly a bird less than 60m high. Some were obviously higher. My gun stayed firmly un mounted.

Edited December 7, 2015 by JDog

[JohnfromUK]

My apologies JDog, I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming they were sensible shots. We are in agreement!

[welshwarrior]

Don't think anyone has suggested a 90m or 300 foot pheasant is a sporting bird however I do feel a 150 foot bird can't be IF the gun is a capable shot.

[CharlieT]

I said that 60- 90m birds were 'extreme' not 'high'.

 

I have seen birds 90m high and I have seen idiots shooting at them. None were shot dead. None were likely to be shot dead at that range.

 

On one drive I witnessed in Devon there was hardly a bird less than 60m high. Some were obviously higher. My gun stayed firmly un mounted.

 

Equally, I have many times witnessed teams of high bird specialists achieving their 500 birds by mid afternoon.

 

One has to appreciate that many of these true high bird specialists shoot 3 days a week. Mere mortals they are not !