20 bore cartridges for pigeon

[JDog]

I would hate to stray off the actual topic (cartridges for a 20 bore) {but many have strayed off topic} but I have just watched for the umpteenth time a youtube video by Will Sheepshanks when he was shooting grouse. If I was cleverer I would have posted the link but I am sure it can easily be found.

 

Sheepshanks was using a 12 bore and his cartridges were 24 gram in 7.5 shot. Make your own minds up as to the effectiveness of such light cartridges and small shot.

[fenboy]

This one ?

 

[JDog]

Yes thanks. That is impressive shooting don't you think?

[fenboy]

Yes thanks. That is impressive shooting don't you think?

I do indeed.

[mk 38]

This one ?

 

thanks for the video

[mk 38]

Thanks for all your help for 20 bore cartridges for pigeons. just been given a bucket full of 20 bore cartridges of all sorts off a lad that how has been doing a lot of loading so got a lot to try

Edited December 31, 2015 by mk 38

[andrewluke]

This one ?

 

but what was the range of those birds as a gopro will make them look further away than they really are!

[neutron619]

but what was the range of those birds as a gopro will make them look further away than they really are!

 

I didn't watch it until I saw your comment, but I just watched halfway through.

 

He hit a lot of birds, and I don't underestimate the difficulty of grouse shooting, but I reckon the front of that gulley is about 10 yards in front of him, which to my mind makes the vast majority of the birds he was shooting between 25-35 yards out. Granted, there was one which came in from 2 o' clock that looked a good 40 yards+ away and it did come down, but if this is supposed to argue that 7½ drops grouse / pigeons / elephants consistently at 50 yards, it's a pretty poor choice of video - I just don't see any evidence of those kind of shots. Good, consistent shooting yes, but not at the ranges for which claims are being made above.

 

And of course, we're all being asked to assume that he's using 28g of #7½ - perhaps I missed it, but I didn't hear him or the loader say anything about choice of cartridge.

Edited January 1, 2016 by neutron619

[Guest stevo]

 

I didn't watch it until I saw your comment, but I just watched halfway through.

 

He hit a lot of birds, and I don't underestimate the difficulty of grouse shooting, but I reckon the front of that gulley is about 10 yards in front of him, which to my mind makes the vast majority of the birds he was shooting between 25-35 yards out. Granted, there was one which came in from 2 o' clock that looked a good 40 yards+ away and it did come down, but if this is supposed to argue that 7½ drops grouse / pigeons / elephants consistently at 50 yards, it's a pretty poor choice of video - I just don't see any evidence of those kind of shots. Good, consistent shooting yes, but not at the ranges for which claims are being made above.

 

And of course, we're all being asked to assume that he's using 28g of #7½ - perhaps I missed it, but I didn't hear him or the loader say anything about choice of cartridge.

Sheepshank explanes the carts used in the first couple of comments . Just scroll it down .

[JDog]

I didn't watch it until I saw your comment, but I just watched halfway through.

 

He hit a lot of birds, and I don't underestimate the difficulty of grouse shooting, but I reckon the front of that gulley is about 10 yards in front of him, which to my mind makes the vast majority of the birds he was shooting between 25-35 yards out. Granted, there was one which came in from 2 o' clock that looked a good 40 yards+ away and it did come down, but if this is supposed to argue that 7½ drops grouse / pigeons / elephants consistently at 50 yards, it's a pretty poor choice of video - I just don't see any evidence of those kind of shots. Good, consistent shooting yes, but not at the ranges for which claims are being made above.

 

And of course, we're all being asked to assume that he's using 28g of #7½ - perhaps I missed it, but I didn't hear him or the loader say anything about choice of cartridge.

If I were you I would quit whilst you are behind.

[neutron619]

If I were you I would quit whilst you are behind.

 

When I feel I'm behind, I'll let you know.

 

I mean, come on - even if you can't see that the camera is, as andrewluke observed, exaggerating the ranges, it's perfectly obvious those aren't 40 or 50 yard birds by the amount of lead he's giving them.

 

I don't doubt that whoever this guy is, he can shoot and he can probably shoot 50+ yard driven grouse and then some. I've got no argument with his obvious ability. What I'm saying is that that video does not prove the point that you and others are trying to make, because it doesn't contain any clear evidence of 50+ yard birds being shot with clay loads.

 

Let's be generous to your cause here - a grouse at full pelt doesn't fly much slower than a wood pigeon. A 40-yard woodie at decent speed needs 20-odd feet of lead to put the pattern on it when the shot gets there. Nowhere in that film did the shooter put the shot that far in front of a bird and knock it down.

 

There were a couple of birds that went round the sides and were shot there or behind. The bird shot at 2:42 where the loader has to duck is a good example. Even that bird, reasonably far out, probably only got 6' to 10' of lead and it was effectively a perpendicular crosser by the time the shooter turned to face it. Allowing that the grouse might fly slightly slower than a woodie, and therefore need less lead, it's still not a 40-yard bird. It isn't difficult to see the evidence either - you can see the hit and the shot cloud and he takes it so smoothly that you almost have time to count the number of bird lengths between the bird and the angle of the muzzles without having to freeze-frame it. It isn't 20', or even close, unless you're going to try and persuade me that a grouse in flight is 4' from beak to tail? Bloody big grouse if so.

 

Looking the other way, so to speak, the pair attempted at 5:06 - neither apparently hit as they're both still climbing when they exit the right of the frame - were probably as far out as any. Maybe even 40 or 50 yards. A provocative person might ask whether such a competent shot (who seems to hit almost everything else) actually hit them both, but the poor choice of cartridge meant that the birds were hit but flew on? He'll never know, and neither will we, but it would be interesting to know if he asked the question of himself after the event.

 

A final thought: those grouse sitting on the edge of the butt at the end of the drive are somewhat smaller than your average plump-breasted woodpigeon, wouldn't you say? Maybe - just maybe - a #7½ pellet or three are enough to give a 90% kill rate on grouse at all reasonable ranges (and some unreasonable ranges too). I suspect pigeons - even being the "weak and easy to kill" kind that Will Garfitt talks about in his article quoted above - are somewhat harder to kill and that would suggest the use of a larger shot size, methinks.

 

Now what would be really interesting is if one of you chaps went out into the field, with your GoPro and a measuring tape and set up your hide and your decoys with some stakes in the ground at 30, 40, 50 and 60 yards in front of it. Then you can do all the shooting you like with your cheap clay cartridges and actually produce some evidence that they're suitable (or otherwise) for 50 yard birds, and the rest of us will do our level best to believe you - if the evidence shows it. We'll be looking for incoming birds falling behind those markers (and not then wandering off ruffled and flapping to find a drink and somewhere quiet to recover from a non-fatal blow to the head). Those of us on my side of the fence will also assume that you're all honourable chaps who won't be manipulating the resulting videos, the measurements, or slapping in 1¼oz of #5 for the fateful shots. Then we'll see.

 

In the meantime, it's all very well pointing to videos of this and that, but if there isn't something nailed to the floor saying "50 yards is here" and the birds are coming down behind that sign, with the cartridges verifiably filled with the load under consideration, you might as well be ******* into the wind, because none of us are going to believe you.

 

Alternatively, you could just approach Gamebore, Hull or some other manufacturer and ask them to start producing something labelled "pigeon special" or similar with an ounce of #7½ in it. I'll be surprised if you could persuade them, but I'd consider it to be quite a coup on your part if you managed it. I'd certainly promise to change my tune if someone like that, with reputation and market share to lose, were to stick their balls in the proverbial vice and claim that #7½ is the appropriate shot size for pigeons... ​

 

Good day!

Edited January 1, 2016 by neutron619

[rbrowning2]

Neutron619 your in front from my view.

 

I think it all comes down to respect, respect for the pigeon. Personally number 7 2.4mm shot works very well as I have said before for shooting over decoys at 30 to 35yards , however to have opportunity to cleanly kill out to 45/50 yards I like to use 6.5 or 2.5mm

That's my choice and my respect for the pigeon, crow or rook that may also show up.

 

But the cartridge manufacturing industry like to put shot sizes into type categories, clay, pigeon, game and in doing so want to market them at different price points.

 

This especially for pigeon cartridges is what causes the problem.

 

When I buy my 6.5 (or 6) or 7 or 8 lead shot I pay the same price per kg regardless of size.

 

I use the same case, primer, wad (give or take) and powder type/dose for 28gm of 8 or 6.5 shot so the final cost is the same.

 

But the industry want you and I to pay more for a pigeon cartridge than a clay cartridge which is where the problem starts.

They would quote economy of scale as the reason but I would say profit is the motivator.

[Guest stevo]

Neutron ,

 

I don't know if this will help as a comparison , I recorded this year ago , using a Top game cart , mid price and a cheap steel 7.5 clay cart ( gambore super steel )

 

ranges were out 50 yrds , but more importantly try and tell the difference .

 

atb stevo

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/304409-two-and-a-half-hrs-on-topped-maze-yesterday-3012015/

[fenboy]

Neutron ,

 

I don't know if this will help as a comparison , I recorded this year ago , using a Top game cart , mid price and a cheap steel 7.5 clay cart ( gambore super steel )

 

ranges were out 50 yrds , but more importantly try and tell the difference .

 

atb stevo

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/304409-two-and-a-half-hrs-on-topped-maze-yesterday-3012015/

I think your wasting your breath stevo , just keep doing what works for you and let the others spend their money on what they think is the better option.

[JDog]

I think your wasting your breath stevo , just keep doing what works for you and let the others spend their money on what they think is the better option.

 

 

Agreed.

 

It seems that Neutron is incapable of accepting that other more experienced shooters than he (Archie C, Will G, Sheepshanks in the video, Stevo and our very own favourite Motty) do well with their own personal choice of cartridges with a smaller shot size than is used by the majority.

[fenboy]

 

 

Agreed.

 

It seems that Neutron is incapable of accepting that other more experienced shooters than he (Archie C, Will G, Sheepshanks in the video, Stevo and our very own favourite Motty) do well with their own personal choice of cartridges with a smaller shot size than is used by the majority.

Indeed it is strange when people who I dare say shoot nothing like the numbers of stevo and motty a season try to tell them what is a poor cartridge choice.

[neutron619]

Neutron ,

 

I don't know if this will help as a comparison , I recorded this year ago , using a Top game cart , mid price and a cheap steel 7.5 clay cart ( gambore super steel )

 

ranges were out 50 yrds , but more importantly try and tell the difference .

 

atb stevo

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/304409-two-and-a-half-hrs-on-topped-maze-yesterday-3012015/

 

stevo,

 

You're not wasting your breath, in spite of what fenboy says - you've presented evidence for me to look at and I've looked at it.

 

I've got two questions in response:

1. How many missed, apparently missed or winged birds did you edit out of your 2½ hours on maize to get to the 9:09 of video you posted?
2. Can you be sure, if you were using such a wide selection of cartridges, that any of the 40-50 yard birds were actually shot with the steel #7½ cartridges?

The trouble is, you've already answered question #2 by saying that you couldn't tell the difference, so you obviously don't know. I couldn't tell the difference either, for what it's worth, though I wasn't there, didn't do the shooting and don't know what's been removed to create the highlights video you've posted. That means that nothing of use can be proved by the video, though again, there were some good shots in there.

 

I'm still looking for a much more scientific proof (or at least some well-constructed evidence) that says you can consistently shoot 50 yard birds with #7½ and not have them come down flapping. I haven't seen it yet.

 

If we haven't got evidence, all we've got is experience.

 

For example: I have some experience of using #5 game loads in both lead and steel in late November last year. I wanted to use up the steel cartridges (Gamebore Super Steel 32g #5) to clear some space on my cartridge shelf. I shot several days, half and half, between lead and steel cartridges, from the same position under the same flight lines. The lead-shot birds came down dead, with a couple of exceptions. At one point, I even shot 4 for 3 cartridges with the lead ones. Every one of the nine birds shot with steel came down flapping. What did I learn? Don't use steel #5's at 40+ yard ranges when decoying pigeons - they don't kill reliably - or at least, not from my gun.

 

Or take the days I spent crow shooting on a farm just outside of Cambridge last June and July. I and a handful of others cleared about 150 crows off a cattle farm over the course of a few weekends, with some quite respectable bags. The other 200 birds got the picture after a few visits and left. To my shame, I used up a box of Gamebore Velocity in - yup, you guessed it - #7½ as well as my normal 32g #5 game load (Eley VIP or Hi Flyer). Could I tell the difference? You betcha. It doesn't make me feel good to have to despatch a wounded crow, shot at 30 yards, with the front half of it's head blown away - yet still flapping and cawing grumpily at me - because it got a direct hit with a cartridge loaded with insufficiently large shot to push at least one pellet through it's chest cavity and cause a humane kill. (Edit: in case you're wondering, it was hit all over - just not hard enough.) Funnily enough, I didn't have any of the same problems with Eleys.

 

What does all that mean? Answer: absolutely **** all. It's not evidence, it's experience (or more appropriately, anecdote). It doesn't reliably prove anything, except that what I'm arguing has a basis in the experience I've had. Think you've had more experience? Well maybe you have. You might have had more luck too - can you measure either or tell me that one kind is more valuable than another? No. In fact, the ​only​ argument that I can make about my experience, which you can't about yours, is that mine is more easily explained in physical terms. That's not to say there isn't an explanation for your assertion that #7½'s kill pigeons better than anything else, but it isn't obvious to me or the majority here, so far as I can tell.

 

Finally, here's the one point I will partly concede. You lot are probably better shots than me. I can therefore understand that you probably get away with using inappropriate and what I view as inhumane cartridges more easily than someone who is less skilled. I still bet you get a lot of winged birds that you keep quiet about and I still don't accept that it's right, even if you are skilled, to use such cartridges. For me, being humane / a moral hunter, is demonstrated both in achieving clean kills in the field and in the intention shown by one's choice of kit.

 

My view is best explained like this: it's possible to kill deer with a .22LR or half an ounce of #6 shot and to do so instantly, if you're sufficiently skilled and very, very lucky, but it isn't humane because it relies too much on luck when more appropriate tools are easily available if required. Similarly, in response to the live game and clay loads argument, it's impossible to deny that there are more appropriate tools available than 28g of #7½ hard "clay type" shot and they therefore ought to be used.

 

The evidence simply isn't there to argue that #7½ is the better choice and if it comes down to experience, what's your 200 years combined against the 5 years each of the 10000 of us here who shoot pigeons with #6's?. You can argue it's not about cost, or that clay shells actually are the best tool for the job (there are still no 1-2% antimony "soft lead" #7½ shells for game anywhere - if you genuinely believe they're the best then put your money where your mouth is and get someone to load some for you) but ultimately it comes down to morality and inconvenience. You lot weigh up the moral cost of using something which isn't the most appropriate tool for the job against the inconvenience of cost (and, no doubt, of getting off of your high towers) and choose the side that isn't morality. That in itself isn't a problem - there are moral people and less moral people - but don't be surprised when the rest of us judge you for it.

Edited January 1, 2016 by neutron619

[neutron619]

Agreed.

 

It seems that Neutron is incapable of accepting that other more experienced shooters than he (Archie C, Will G, Sheepshanks in the video, Stevo and our very own favourite Motty) do well with their own personal choice of cartridges with a smaller shot size than is used by the majority.

 

You mistake me - I'm quite capable of accepting it, much as I'm capable of accepting that there are folk out there who beat their wives.

 

I don't have to think either of them are good moral choices, however (see above).

[NorfolkAYA]

Could I just add that one of hulls most popular game cartridge "imperial game" offers a 28gm 7shot cartridge (2.4mm). It is what most guns use on a shoot that I attend through there side by sides to great affect on pheasants and partridge.

 

Also eley impax 28gm 7 (2.4mm) state on the website that suggested quarry is pheasent, partridge, woodcock and pigeon

 

I'm sure these 2 reputable cartridge company's would put there name to theses cartridges if they could not kill out to 50 yards.

 

ATB

[Guest cookoff013]

If #6 was cheaper it would be favourable.

 

It is personal choice, just like choke, speed and payload.

However my opinion still is #6 is better at distance. I used 7.5s once. But I have also used other shells too. 36g #6 etc.

[fenboy]

 

stevo,

 

You're not wasting your breath, in spite of what fenboy says - you've presented evidence for me to look at and I've looked at it.

 

I've got two questions in response:

1. How many missed, apparently missed or winged birds did you edit out of your 2½ hours on maize to get to the 9:09 of video you posted?
2. Can you be sure, if you were using such a wide selection of cartridges, that any of the 40-50 yard birds were actually shot with the steel #7½ cartridges?

The trouble is, you've already answered question #2 by saying that you couldn't tell the difference, so you obviously don't know. I couldn't tell the difference either, for what it's worth, though I wasn't there, didn't do the shooting and don't know what's been removed to create the highlights video you've posted. That means that nothing of use can be proved by the video, though again, there were some good shots in there.

 

I'm still looking for a much more scientific proof (or at least some well-constructed evidence) that says you can consistently shoot 50 yard birds with #7½ and not have them come down flapping. I haven't seen it yet.

 

If we haven't got evidence, all we've got is experience.

 

For example: I have some experience of using #5 game loads in both lead and steel in late November last year. I wanted to use up the steel cartridges (Gamebore Super Steel 32g #5) to clear some space on my cartridge shelf. I shot several days, half and half, between lead and steel cartridges, from the same position under the same flight lines. The lead-shot birds came down dead, with a couple of exceptions. At one point, I even shot 4 for 3 cartridges with the lead ones. Every one of the nine birds shot with steel came down flapping. What did I learn? Don't use steel #5's at 40+ yard ranges when decoying pigeons - they don't kill reliably - or at least, not from my gun.

 

Or take the days I spent crow shooting on a farm just outside of Cambridge last June and July. I and a handful of others cleared about 150 crows off a cattle farm over the course of a few weekends, with some quite respectable bags. The other 200 birds got the picture after a few visits and left. To my shame, I used up a box of Gamebore Velocity in - yup, you guessed it - #7½ as well as my normal 32g #5 game load (Eley VIP or Hi Flyer). Could I tell the difference? You betcha. It doesn't make me feel good to have to despatch a wounded crow, shot at 30 yards, with the front half of it's head blown away - yet still flapping and cawing grumpily at me - because it got a direct hit with a cartridge loaded with insufficiently large shot to push at least one pellet through it's chest cavity and cause a humane kill. Funnily enough, I didn't have any of the same problems with Eleys.

 

What does all that mean? Answer: absolutely **** all. It's not evidence, it's experience (or more appropriately, anecdote). It doesn't reliably prove anything, except that what I'm arguing has a basis in the experience I've had. Think you've had more experience? Well maybe you have. You might have had more luck too - can you measure either or tell me that one kind is more valuable than another? No. In fact, the ​only​ argument that I can make about my experience, which you can't about yours, is that mine is more easily explained in physical terms. That's not to say there isn't an explanation for your assertion that #7½'s kill pigeons better than anything else, but it isn't obvious to me or the majority here, so far as I can tell.

 

Finally, here's the one point I will partly concede. You lot are probably better shots than me. I can therefore understand that you probably get away with using inappropriate and what I view as inhumane cartridges more easily than someone who is less skilled. I still bet you get a lot of winged birds that you keep quiet about and I still don't accept that it's right, even if you are skilled, to use such cartridges. For me, being humane / a moral hunter, is demonstrated both in achieving clean kills in the field and in the intention shown by one's choice of kit.

 

My view is best explained like this: it's possible to kill deer with a .22LR or half an ounce of #6 shot and to do so instantly, if you're sufficiently skilled and very, very lucky, but it isn't humane because it relies too much on luck when more appropriate tools are easily available if required. Similarly, in response to the live game and clay loads argument, it's impossible to deny that there are more appropriate tools available than 28g of #7½ hard "clay type" shot and they therefore ought to be used.

 

The evidence simply isn't there to argue that #7½ is the better choice and if it comes down to experience, what's your 200 years combined against the 5 years each of the 10000 of us here who shoot pigeons with #6's?. You can argue it's not about cost, or that clay shells actually are the best tool for the job (there are still no 1-2% antimony "soft lead" #7½ shells for game anywhere - if you genuinely believe they're the best then put your money where your mouth is and get someone to load some for you) but ultimately it comes down to morality and inconvenience. You lot weigh up the moral cost of using something which isn't the most appropriate tool for the job against the inconvenience of cost (and, no doubt, of getting off of your high towers) and choose the side that isn't morality. That in itself isn't a problem - there are moral people and less moral people - but don't be surprised when the rest of us judge you for it.

Less moral my **** ! , time you started posting some "evidence" of you perfect kills with 6s as for you getting more flappers with steel , learn to shoot steel properly , I used steel almost exclusively on pigeon this year and had no such problems , yet " everyone you shot came down flapping " I would of thought your superior morals would have put a stop to it after the first couple .

[NorfolkAYA]

Motty what's your YouTube name I want to take a look at you vids 👍

[neutron619]

Less moral my **** ! , time you started posting some "evidence" of you perfect kills with 6s as for you getting more flappers with steel , learn to shoot steel properly , I used steel almost exclusively on pigeon this year and had no such problems , yet " everyone you shot came down flapping " I would of thought your superior morals would have put a stop to it after the first couple .

 

Difficult, as I shoot #5's mostly, as implied repeatedly above. Do try to keep up old chap.

 

Oh - and I'll be recording "learn to shoot steel properly" in the annals of the Flat Earth Society - quite a spectacular comment with your implication that shooting steel is somehow different to shooting lead. Crikey I'm ******* myself laughing. Presumably with steel I have to aim 5 degrees to the left and say the magic code word for it to work?

 

Have a nice day.

[fenboy]

Motty what's your YouTube name I want to take a look at you vids

 

 

[wj939]

 

stevo,

 

You're not wasting your breath, in spite of what fenboy says - you've presented evidence for me to look at and I've looked at it.

 

I've got two questions in response:

• How many missed, apparently missed or winged birds did you edit out of your 2½ hours on maize to get to the 9:09 of video you posted?
• Can you be sure, if you were using such a wide selection of cartridges, that any of the 40-50 yard birds were actually shot with the steel #7½ cartridges?

The trouble is, you've already answered question #2 by saying that you couldn't tell the difference, so you obviously don't know. I couldn't tell the difference either, for what it's worth, though I wasn't there, didn't do the shooting and don't know what's been removed to create the highlights video you've posted. That means that nothing of use can be proved by the video, though again, there were some good shots in there.

 

I'm still looking for a much more scientific proof (or at least some well-constructed evidence) that says you can consistently shoot 50 yard birds with #7½ and not have them come down flapping. I haven't seen it yet.

 

Finally, here's the one point I will partly concede. You lot are probably better shots than me. I can therefore understand that you probably get away with using inappropriate and what I view as inhumane cartridges more easily than someone who is less skilled. I still bet you get a lot of winged birds that you keep quiet about and I still don't accept that it's right, even if you are skilled, to use such cartridges. For me, being humane / a moral hunter, is demonstrated both in achieving clean kills in the field and in the intention shown by one's choice of kit.

 

My view is best explained like this: it's possible to kill deer with a .22LR or half an ounce of #6 shot and to do so instantly, if you're sufficiently skilled and very, very lucky, but it isn't humane because it relies too much on luck when more appropriate tools are easily available if required. Similarly, in response to the live game and clay loads argument, it's impossible to deny that there are more appropriate tools available than 28g of #7½ hard "clay type" shot and they therefore ought to be used.

 

The evidence simply isn't there to argue that #7½ is the better choice and if it comes down to experience, what's your 200 years combined against the 5 years each of the 10000 of us here who shoot pigeons with #6's?. You can argue it's not about cost, or that clay shells actually are the best tool for the job (there are still no 1-2% antimony "soft lead" #7½ shells for game anywhere - if you genuinely believe they're the best then put your money where your mouth is and get someone to load some for you) but ultimately it comes down to morality and inconvenience. You lot weigh up the moral cost of using something which isn't the most appropriate tool for the job against the inconvenience of cost (and, no doubt, of getting off of your high towers) and choose the side that isn't morality. That in itself isn't a problem - there are moral people and less moral people - but don't be surprised when the rest of us judge you for it.

Spot on.

 

I am excited to go out tomorrow with my 32g 8's (gamebores new pigeon specials) and shoot something. I now know it's ok and hope to knock a few true 60 yarders down(good at range guessing me). After all, only vermin and I can spend the extra couple of quid saved on beers afterwards.

 

Of course, the other way we could prove the physics argument is to hold a shotguns at dawn duel- you lot can pick an ounce of 71/2's or 8's in English or Italian or German for all it matters. I'll start with my 36gram 4's that I use for exceptional pheasant and work down to my standard load (after all, using the right tool for the job means changing to suit the conditions) We'll start 100 yards apart and fire a shot at each other moving steadily closer- I wonder who says ouch first?