Cartridge Doubts

[Guerini Guy]

_{Harder shot penetrates better, helping to reach vital organs.}

 

I can relate to that, although on an alternative note, I always understood that the mis-shaping of lead shot was also a factor in creating added trauma and death to the quarry.

 

But because of your obvious knowledge, which I really appreciate by the way, I would be interested on your views therefore about steel shot as it is so hard. Considering the ranges that most pigeons are shot, particularly over decoys, would you consider this to be a strong contender over lead.

 

Honestly not trying to stir up any **** here, just an interested question?

[Wilksy II]

 

Haha Mr Wilksy II - I think its less about my eye dominance, and more about you reading the posts correctly mate.

 

I don't have a problem with my shooting . . . . . just asking a simple question about what cartridges people use.

 

I have carefully re-read my posts and, sorry guys, but I just don't get where I have expressed any concern over my shooting ability? Just curious about a specific cartridge size.

 

I'll say it once again - I am very happy with my personal choice of 32g 6's, but it doesn't stop me being curious and interested about other shooters' preferences!

 

Aye fair do's! Like I say just a thought!

[motty]

Steel is fine for pigeons. I have also made a video of using it on a big day.

For me, the deformation of lead pellets does little for their lethality.

[Guerini Guy]

Steel is fine for pigeons. I have also made a video of using it on a big day.

For me, the deformation of lead pellets does little for their lethality.

 

Thanks

[Hamster]

Just today I picked two birds up with a pellet through their head and other obvious shot marks on their body both alive but incapacitated (some half an hour to a full hour) from time of being shot. Both shot with 6.5 at no more than 35 yards max and they folded such that I had little reason to believe they're not dead.

 

There is no way these birds received less than 0.85 watchmacallits, I don't care who wrote what when and what his name is, just because it's in a book it doesn't make it true. I can't believe I even have to type this it should be so blindingly obvious to whoever has shot pigeon longer than a day.

 

No verifiable scientific data = opinion.

[Continental Shooter]

Plan a day this week and will be shooting 19grms of Italian #8s .. 7 1/4 UK They kill pheasants and partridge efficiently out to 40yrds so should do for pigeon if I do my bit.

I would have thought the set up you now have should still do the job. Not wish to doubt your ability one little bit but I ' ve been there when I was younger and less experienced and blamed the tools when I was at fault.

 

 

Really?? 8 never was a size of choice for pheasant TBH, that said we don't shoot driven animals and only use pointing dogs (occasionally spaniels)so, 8 would be fine for that job; not too sure it'll be the same to a 40yds high screeming pheasant...

 

That said, i'd normally use 8 when the season open to shoot doves and early season pigeons or if decoying ducks as a first barrel; so, if you're dcoying - and the pigeons play ball- 8 should suffice... still wouldn't risk a 40 yds shot.

 

I moved to UK 5s myself...but that's because i was used to use EU 4 or 5 for passing pigeons ; Now i need to be able to shoot everything from decoyed birds to duck and geese in the same spot/area without making it a fuss to change loads or having to bring with me a shed loads of different shells so, 5s will do most of the work and make it easier for me to relaod different play loads of the same pellets;

 

However, if i am solely decoying i'd rather use 6s and if condition demands it, just use an heavier load and tighter chocke: whilst normally using 26gr #6, i always have with me some 30gr #6 if birds are shy, high or even on roosting birds

[Whitebridges]

Steel is fine for pigeons. I have also made a video of using it on a big day.

For me, the deformation of lead pellets does little for their lethality.

 

For my money motty you're worth listening too.

 

Your list is impressive, other posters please read motty's sig: Best pigeon bags of my 'career', in chronological order -

 

As long as lead is legal for shooting pigeons in the UK then this is what i'll use exclusively. The reason being is that a big move to steel by the cartridge manufacturers would leave game shooters with lovely old English boxlocks and sidelocks in the ****.

I don't want to see a big move towards steel. All these "green" lovey-dovies drive me insane as it is.

It's a heritage thing with me. Respectfully yours.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Whitebridges

[Hamster]

I have zero experience of using steel on pigeon and next to none on clays but over the years I have near enough always found myself agreeing with the vast majority of what motty has to say on pigeon and shells.

 

Sometimes you just know someone really has been there, and of course at times you also know some haven't.

[wymberley]

This is the level of evidence that the man expects from others:

I was hoping for PROOF ? You know, like a reference to the detailed three year long study which includedthousands of different animals being shot at different ranges in different climates ( to factor in plumage andgeneral body condition ), using different shot sizes and not forgetting of course making sure they arecategorised according to orientation of body mass at moment of firing with details telling us how long it tookfor them to expire from this mythical 0.85 thingy.


And who then goes on to add a footnote:

No verifiable scientific data = opinion.


Yet, when his turn comes the best he can do is this which certainly does not even qualify as anecdotal evidence and barely scrapes past being defined as hearsay:

Just today I picked two birds up with a pellet through their head and other obvious shot marks on their bodyboth alive but incapacitated.

 

Then, this from someone with so little experience that he has yet to learn that the wily old wood pigeon is extremely adept at 'playing dead' and is content to clearly define his idea of sportsmanlike conduct on a public forum as follows:

(some half an hour to a full hour) from time of being shot.Both shot with 6.5 at no more than 35 yards max and they folded such that I had little reason to believe they're not dead.

 

 

If he holds some old English ballistician and writer in such contempt, I hate to think what he'll say when he finds out what some French chappy said about choke.

[Whitebridges]

Whatever are you running on about wymberley? Where are your marbles for heavens sake?

[rbrowning2]

Just today I picked two birds up with a pellet through their head and other obvious shot marks on their body both alive but incapacitated (some half an hour to a full hour) from time of being shot.

 

No verifiable scientific data = opinion.

 

Pellets through their heads = must be because them pigeons had their brains in their feet, like some people I know

[neutron619]

There is no way these birds received less than 0.85 watchmacallits, I don't care who wrote what when and what his name is, just because it's in a book it doesn't make it true. I can't believe I even have to type this it should be so blindingly obvious to whoever has shot pigeon longer than a day.

 

No verifiable scientific data = opinion.

 

I happen to agree with you. If the pellets were doing - say - 650fps when they hit, the energy would be nearer twice 0.85ftlbs at somewhere around 1.5ftlbs.

 

However, I'm confused as to why you're choosing to use that as an example?

 

Wymberly said the following:

 

0.85 ft/lbs is empirical in nature and is based upon decades of shooting experience and is the quoted minimum energy requirement to kill a wood pigeon - and also other species. A cock partridge weighs 14 oz, a wood pigeon 18.

 

I.e. he's saying, if the pellet has less than 0.85ftlbs energy, it won't reliably kill.

 

You're saying that a pellet having roughly twice that energy failed to kill.

 

That's apples and oranges.

 

Think of it on a larger scale. A spit wad from some oik's blowpipe isn't going to kill me if it hits me, but that doesn't mean I can't survive getting shot in the leg with a 2700ftlbs .308 round (if I'm lucky). A bullet in the "wrong" place will wound, but it's not necessarily going to be the end of me. A bigger, faster bullet likewise. Energy isn't the only requirement. You need enough, but it's got to be delivered to the right spot and excess energy doesn't compensate for that failing to happen. Not at this level, anyway.

 

Most of a pigeon's workings are in the upper spine, not the brain anyway, which is why you see the odd one, skull casing blown open, still walking round looking a bit confused. If the holes aren't in the right place, they won't die.

Edited February 22, 2017 by neutron619

[The Sipe-ist]

 

Haha Mr Wilksy II - I think its less about my eye dominance, and more about you reading the posts correctly mate.

 

I don't have a problem with my shooting . . . . . just asking a simple question about what cartridges people use.

 

I have carefully re-read my posts and, sorry guys, but I just don't get where I have expressed any concern over my shooting ability? Just curious about a specific cartridge size.

 

I'll say it once again - I am very happy with my personal choice of 32g 6's, but it doesn't stop me being curious and interested about other shooters' preferences!

 

For what it's worth, I think your current choice of cartridge is a good one.

I cannot and don't intend to back my preference up with factual proof, but I have shot many thousands of pigeons in my time with most types, weights and shot sizes I could lay my dirty little hands on (except steel) and although I have had considerable success with 7 1/2 shot my conclusion, regardless of price is that RC Sipes in 32g 6 shot are consistently the hardest hitting cartridge I have ever used. Hence my forum name.

I believe RC 6 shot is actually UK 51/2 shot which again with absolutely no real evidence to back my claims,I believe to be the best shot size to maintain pattern density with sufficient impact to kill pigeons at very long ranges.

Just personal observations gathered through years of pulling the trigger in the field. I must add I no longer use Sipes because I only use fibre wads for all but clays these days (finding a good fibre wad replacement has been a major problem).

So Malcolm forget your cartridge doubts, you are not using the wrong loads.

[Hamster]

 

 

 

You're saying that a pellet having roughly twice that energy failed to kill.

 

 

Most of a pigeon's workings are in the upper spine, not the brain anyway, which is why you see the odd one, skull casing blown open, still walking round looking a bit confused. If the holes aren't in the right place, they won't die.

 

Precisely, unless the damage is in the right area it will not lead to the quick demise of the creature hence such simplistic assertions such as "0.85" are flawed. Flawed is a polite word for wrong. I have written of my experiences in the past regarding head shot rabbits that also refused to die quickly which again blows several myths apart.

 

Experience over several decades has shown me that some birds die in an instant some don't and how many pellets hit them (hence the overall kinetic poundage) is in itself of little consequence. It is not the 0.85 that kills but the "where". Writers of past just like writers of the present liked the sound of their own voice so will say what "seems" logical to them, it doesn't mean it's true until quantified by tests on a massive sample size. No large sample test = opinion.

This is the level of evidence that the man expects from others:

 

I was hoping for PROOF ? You know, like a reference to the detailed three year long study which includedthousands of different animals being shot at different ranges in different climates ( to factor in plumage andgeneral body condition ), using different shot sizes and not forgetting of course making sure they arecategorised according to orientation of body mass at moment of firing with details telling us how long it tookfor them to expire from this mythical 0.85 thingy.

 

 

And who then goes on to add a footnote:

 

No verifiable scientific data = opinion.

 

 

Yet, when his turn comes the best he can do is this which certainly does not even qualify as anecdotal evidence and barely scrapes past being defined as hearsay:

 

Just today I picked two birds up with a pellet through their head and other obvious shot marks on their bodyboth alive but incapacitated.

 

Then, this from someone with so little experience that he has yet to learn that the wily old wood pigeon is extremely adept at 'playing dead' and is content to clearly define his idea of sportsmanlike conduct on a public forum as follows:

 

(some half an hour to a full hour) from time of being shot.Both shot with 6.5 at no more than 35 yards max and they folded such that I had little reason to believe they're not dead.

 

 

If he holds some old English ballistician and writer in such contempt, I hate to think what he'll say when he finds out what some French chappy said about choke.

 

 

Sorry I just don't really get that.

[rbrowning2]

I think if you read up on the 0.85 energy it is not saying that only one pellet will be effective but from memory five which is why pattern is so important. So you need enough pellets of the correct size in the cartridge and the correct choke to deliver a satisfactory pattern at the maximum distance you want to shoot. Which is why as the pellet size increased traditionally so did the shot weight.

[Hamster]

I think if you read up on the 0.85 energy it is not saying that only one pellet will be effective but from memory five which is why pattern is so important. So you need enough pellets of the correct size in the cartridge and the correct choke to deliver a satisfactory pattern at the maximum distance you want to shoot. Which is why as the pellet size increased traditionally so did the shot weight.

 

Yes you are correct it says something like 3-5 needed for a pheasant not just one, my point is that is not borne out by practical field experience.

[wymberley]

 

Yes you are correct it says something like 3-5 needed for a pheasant not just one, my point is that is not borne out by practical field experience.

Now I'm confused. Are you not familiar with the word, 'empirical'?

[neutron619]

 

Precisely, unless the damage is in the right area it will not lead to the quick demise of the creature hence such simplistic assertions such as "0.85" are flawed. Flawed is a polite word for wrong. I have written of my experiences in the past regarding head shot rabbits that also refused to die quickly which again blows several myths apart.

 

Experience over several decades has shown me that some birds die in an instant some don't and how many pellets hit them (hence the overall kinetic poundage) is in itself of little consequence. It is not the 0.85 that kills but the "where". Writers of past just like writers of the present liked the sound of their own voice so will say what "seems" logical to them, it doesn't mean it's true until quantified by tests on a massive sample size. No large sample test = opinion.

 

And this is where I turn round and disagree with you.

 

Apples and oranges again.

 

Wymberley can speak for himself, but for my money, it's not the 0.85ftlbs that's simplistic but your interpretation of what it is he's trying to say and the point that's being argued.

 

I think if you read up on the 0.85 energy it is not saying that only one pellet will be effective but from memory five which is why pattern is so important. So you need enough pellets of the correct size in the cartridge and the correct choke to deliver a satisfactory pattern at the maximum distance you want to shoot. Which is why as the pellet size increased traditionally so did the shot weight.

 

rbrowning2 is correct.

 

No-one, not Wymberley, rbrowning2, myself or any of the old-time writers - Burrard etc. - ever said that "a pellet having 0.85ftlbs of kinetic energy will kill species XYZ" at whatever distance. The fact that you have interpreted what has been said in that way is an over-simplification or a flaw on your part. Or to use your other word: "wrong".

 

Rather, what has been argued - fairly consistently, as far as I can see - is that sufficient kinetic energy is one component of many, of what is necessary for a shotgun pellet to kill a bird.

 

The fact that we're not talking about pattern density, shot size (directly, at least), shot composition or any of those other factors doesn't mean they aren't important. It only means that we're operating in a rational manner by focusing on one variable at a time, to determine it's effect and assuming that all other variables are provided for sufficiently.

 

This is what's so frustrating about this place - people seem to think that if they can find an edge case, that the value of the general rule it disproves is zero. In fact, no-one - not even me, as gratifying as it is to have so many of you thinking that I have - has ever argued that we know what the fundamental laws of the universe are with regard to shotgun behaviour.

 

Rather, we only argue that there are general trends that are useful in interpreting what we see. It is a general trend that being hit head-on by a car at 58mph will kill a human, but that doesn't mean no-one's ever survived it. In fact the figure is that it's around 90% lethal (see: https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf).The fact that 10% survived (in whatever state) isn't a good counter-argument against the generally sensible advice not to walk in to the middle of a busy A-road.

 

There is plenty of data, old and new, produced to a scientific standard, which concentrates on the relationship between projectile shape, composition, energy and it's ability to penetrate standard standard media (pigs, ballistic gelatin, etc.) which supports the idea of a minimum necessary kinetic energy for the size of the game. I happen to think the 0.85ftlbs energy is quite a sensible one. Provided the projectiles aren't ping-pong balls but are lead or steel shot of pretty much any size, that amount of energy should mean a velocity capable of penetrating far enough to get into a bird - if the shot is on target.

 

On the other hand, you can't sensibly test all your variables at once, which is implicitly what you're arguing for. Motty actually backed me up a while back when I argued against that approach to cartridge testing, when I argued that simply shooting a new cartridge in the field tells you nothing, because you have no information about what caused a miss - you or the cartridge, or something else. If you think that the only valid test is one where every variable is known (but not controlled) then you're never going to see what you'd call "satisfactory" data because it's a) impossible to record and b) useless for analytical purposes.

 

Writing down that you shot XYZ with 32g of #6 from this cartridge "and it worked" might help you remember the experience; likewise writing down that 32g/#9 "didn't". It is data, sure, but unless you know about every other condition in which the test occurred, it isn't scientific and it's impossible to analyze sensibly. I could stand up here and say that I "know" that "42g of #4 won't kill XYZ bird under any circumstances" and you'll all tell me I'm mad - until I say that the test I'm referring to was performed on a methane iceberg on the surface of Neptune where the gravity is 10x that of earth and the shot wouldn't kill because no-one could actually stand up, let alone pick up the gun. Reductio in absurdam, yes, but assuming you could control all other variables, it would be scientific.

 

I'm sure you must have got the point by now. Minimum requirement, not total requirement. Control your variables / conditions for useful data. Plenty published. Don't give the patient all the drugs thinking that you'll be able to identify the one that works afterwards - that sort of thing. It's not hard, is it?

Edited February 23, 2017 by neutron619

[Hamster]

Now I'm confused. Are you not familiar with the word, 'empirical'?

 

Again I don't understand.

[wymberley]

It might be worth remembering that the best definition of maximum range ever given made no mention of distance, energy or pellet count/size:

 

"The maximum effective range of a gun in relation to a given kind of game is the greatest range at which it is reasonably certain that a clean kill will be made by a truly aimed shot." - Gough Thomas

 

Ie, no reason = no sense.

[Hamster]

 

And this is where I turn round and disagree with you.

 

Apples and oranges again.

 

Wymberley can speak for himself, but for my money, it's not the 0.85ftlbs that's simplistic but your interpretation of what it is he's trying to say and the point that's being argued.

 

 

rbrowning2 is correct.

 

No-one, not Wymberley, rbrowning2, myself or any of the old-time writers - Burrard etc. - ever said that "a pellet having 0.85ftlbs of kinetic energy will kill species XYZ" at whatever distance. The fact that you have interpreted what has been said in that way is an over-simplification or a flaw on your part. Or to use your other word: "wrong".

 

Rather, what has been argued - fairly consistently, as far as I can see - is that sufficient kinetic energy is one component of many, of what is necessary for a shotgun pellet to kill a bird.

 

The fact that we're not talking about pattern density, shot size (directly, at least), shot composition or any of those other factors doesn't mean they aren't important. It only means that we're operating in a rational manner by focusing on one variable at a time, to determine it's effect and assuming that all other variables are provided for sufficiently.

 

This is what's so frustrating about this place - people seem to think that if they can find an edge case, that the value of the general rule it disproves is zero. In fact, no-one - not even me, as gratifying as it is to have so many of you thinking that I have - has ever argued that we know what the fundamental laws of the universe are with regard to shotgun behaviour.

 

Rather, we only argue that there are general trends that are useful in interpreting what we see. It is a general trend that being hit head-on by a car at 58mph will kill a human, but that doesn't mean no-one's ever survived it. In fact the figure is that it's around 90% lethal (see: https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf).The fact that 10% survived (in whatever state) isn't a counter-argument against the generally sensible advice not to walk in to the middle of a busy A-road.

 

There is plenty of data, old and new, produced to a scientific standard, which concentrates on the relationship between projectile shape, composition, energy and it's ability to penetrate standard standard media (pigs, ballistic gelatin, etc.) which supports the idea of a minimum necessary kinetic energy for the size of the game. I happen to think the 0.85ftlbs energy is quite a sensible one. Provided the projectiles aren't ping-pong balls but are lead or steel shot of pretty much any size, that amount of energy should mean a velocity capable of penetrating far enough to get into a bird - if the shot is on target.

 

On the other hand, you can't sensibly test all your variables at once, which is implicitly what you're arguing for. Motty actually backed me up a while back when I argued against that approach to cartridge testing, when I argued that simply shooting a new cartridge in the field tells you nothing, because you have no information about what caused a miss - you or the cartridge, or something else. If you think that the only valid test is one where every variable is known (but not controlled) then you're never going to see what you'd call "satisfactory" data because it's a) impossible to record and b) useless for analytical purposes.

 

Writing down that you shot XYZ with 32g of #6 from this cartridge "and it worked" might help you remember the experience; likewise writing down that 32g/#9 "didn't". It is data, sure, but unless you know about every other condition in which the test occurred, it isn't scientific and it's impossible to analyze sensibly. I could stand up here and say that I "know" that "42g of #4 won't kill XYZ bird under any circumstances" and you'll all tell me I'm mad - until I say that the test I'm referring to was performed on a methane iceberg on the surface of Neptune where the gravity is 10x that of earth and the shot wouldn't kill because no-one could actually stand up, let alone pick up the gun. Reductio in absurdam, yes, but assuming you could control all other variables, it would be scientific.

 

I'm sure you must have got the point by now. Minimum requirement, not total requirement. Control your variables / conditions for useful data. Plenty published. Don't give the patient all the drugs thinking that you'll be able to identify the one that works - that sort of thing. It's not hard, is it?

 

Why ? It seems absurdly simplistic and on the low side to me. Much of what you have written I actually agree with and is the reason WHY I believe you can't draw simplistic conclusions; 0.85 x 3 is 2.55 with a fair chance of at least one of them being delivered in the right spot yet time and again it fails, as do 5 pellets, proving that the formula is flawed and cannot be relied upon in the field. I call that flawed=wrong=pointless, others may wish to interpret it differently.

[wymberley]

 

Yes you are correct it says something like 3-5 needed for a pheasant not just one, my point is that is not borne out by practical field experience.

 

 

 

Again I don't understand.

Empirical means any data/information/call it what you will was borne from experience. In this instance, that means exactly what you say it wasn't.

[wymberley]

 

Why ? It seems absurdly simplistic and on the low side to me. Much of what you have written I actually agree with and is the reason WHY I believe you can't draw simplistic conclusions; 0.85 x 3 is 2.55 with a fair chance of at least one of them being delivered in the right spot yet time and again it fails, as do 5 pellets, proving that the formula is flawed and cannot be relied upon in the field. I call that flawed=wrong=pointless, others may wish to interpret it differently.

You're consistently failing to grasp the point - the 'formula' is derived from the field.

However, by the very nature of the beast anything to do with shotgun performance is based on an average and any formula - that's probably the wrong word to use, 'findings' might be more appropriate - will therefore vary. Consequently, such findings will only act as a guide. As stated a few minutes ago, it's the application of reason that really matters - and, of course, sportsmanship.

[Hamster]

 

 

Empirical means any data/information/call it what you will was borne from experience. In this instance, that means exactly what you say it wasn't.

 

Nope, you've still lost me.

You're consistently failing to grasp the point - the 'formula' is derived from the field.

However, by the very nature of the beast anything to do with shotgun performance is based on an average and any formula - that's probably the wrong word to use, 'findings' might be more appropriate - will therefore vary. Consequently, such findings will only act as a guide. As stated a few minutes ago, it's the application of reason that really matters - and, of course, sportsmanship.

 

Flawed guide.

[wymberley]

 

Nope, you've still lost me.

 

Flawed guide.

And at this point I'm content to let it rest. I will look forward to your published piece explaining why that information is flawed and your revised input which corrects it.