doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 5/8 ounce #10 shot for grouse?

Chuck, partridge/grouse are good-sized birds with as much meat as most ducks we see around here except for eiders and scoters. We stand on both wings and pull by the legs to deliver a skinned and gutted bird to the bag within 30 seconds. No. 6 or 7 1/2, doesn't make much difference. I usually take 7 1/2 to build my confidence.

Grouse are cunning birds, it seems. In years of good numbers, I've seen all the fancy-dancing and sometimes after the leaves are gone up to 10 flush into a young maple. My 91-year-old buddy once shot eight from a tree with a .22 (he was rabbit hunting) dropping those on the lower limbs first. Mostly though, partridge flushes scare the devil out of me.

I hunt grouse in the woods each year and occaisionally sharp tails on the prairies. I second the choice of 6 or 7 1/2 shot.
7 1/2 usually in the woods.

Well then, he was wrong about the penetration. This was very common in "the day", to throw words out in the sporting press, thousands at a time, just for recreation. Hey, that's kind of like internet gun forums, huh? Seriously, #10 didn't have any penetration then and it doesn't have any now. Why would I want to eat a grouse with 77 pellets in it when I could eat one with 6 pellets in it? Pellets on game birds smaller than 7 1/2 is insane, inhumane, and hard on your teeth.

Made my switch from 7-1/2 to #6 when I switched to some of the lower pressure/lower velocity loads a number of years ago. Killing power relates to the amount of energy delivered to the bird. #6 seems more effective. #10 is totally ridiculous!

How I would love to meet the author, and bayonet him to death with a hat pin.
He'd then know what a Prick was.

When I hunt grouse I use #7 1/2 shot and I doubt anyone in His right mind would use #10 shot.

But this was a different time; I was trying to find out if anyone would know why He used that particular load. He must have thought it had some advantage.
I don't think it would fill the bird with as much shot as some say, there are only 5/8th of an ounce. It was shot through a cylinder bore with 3 drams of powder, so that it would open fairly wide.
Reading the book you see that the author had a very strong sense of sportsmanship.
I have to think there was more to it than it seems.
Pete

sxs --- agree with your supposition.

The idea that he was recommending pellets that were probably about .079 in diameter instead of .094 diameter (#7's) is not necessarily out of bounds.

I have read a number of pre 90's hunting manuals that recommend 9's for grouse. They wax on that you kill grouse primarily with pellet hits to the head or neck and not so much with body shots and the bird cannot distinguish the difference in .015 diameter and corellating weight, if a few of the pellets of either size hit a grouse in the head or neck at 25 or less yards it is probably going down fast. My estimate is this 1898 author was shooting about 365 pellets in the right barrel and 511 pellets in the left barrel with .079 or so diameter from a high 3 dram charge (and did you notice he stipulated a high quality black powder as opposed to middle of the road crap). And, although it goes against popular hunting recommendations today, in 2007, it is not crazy to believe he was shooting these birds rather dead at 18-20 yards all day with his favorite load, his favorite gun, and his fine shooting skills.

But as we all know for the past 20 years the larger pellet/more mass energy approach is the acceptable philosophy and for every bird species there is a different pellet size that must be used, and if you do not use the chart with the picture showing which shot size is appropriate for which species then you get ten demerits and no one talks to you at the range bar.

Yogi, I believe you are right.

He put a lot of thought in the loads he chose.

In making experiments I would advise that you load not less than six shells just alike, taking care to mark them in such a manner that you will know just how they are loaded, and then load others with different charges in sets of six each, until you have quite a varied assortment... Then test them at the target, ... On no account should you have a preference for any particular charge. Let the targets settle the question.....When making these experiments, you should bear in mind that the barrel you use first should make a well-spread, even pattern at twenty yards, as in nearly all your shooting-in cover at least-your birds will be from fifteen to twenty-five yards when shot at...
As a rule you will find that the same amount of powder with a reduced quantity of shot will give more penetration and greater spread...
As a rule all guns that are turned out by first-class manufacturers will shoot well when they are properly loaded, and nearly all will shoot fairly well when loaded with almost any of the charges in common use; but "fairly well" is not good enough for you and me, and we will not rest content until we have found just the best charge...

He did carefully choose his loads.
Pete

Indeed. Good post, sxs. It reminds me of the time I wanted to shoot brass shells in the worst way. I must admit the actual results no matter what I tried were less than reliable/consistent/excellent.... Thus I keep them on my bed table because they look so cool and I even bring them out and show them to young gun enthusiasts, but do not hunt with them. Everysone says wow when they see a 12 gauge brass shell especially with a .715 round ball sticking out the top

I do admit over the time and in most---albeit not all cases certainly---I have become more of a big/heavy/slower slug guy when it comes to hunting four legged animals and smaller pellet/bigger dram charge guy on birdies. The last deer I shot a friend and BIG hunter insisted I try a winchester gold, very fast slug, something like 2000 fps plus, some kind of high tech composite expansion design. Hit the heart but because of the angle the exit was the front leg. Mercy, lost a lot of good meat due to slug damage.

On birdies it seems in MANY---not all---I get more dead ones down with highly charged smaller pellets and although I may be called a heretic: a more open choke. Oh my, resembles Hammonds findings. Okay, I guess I'll drink alone.... hahaha

Yet in order not be be sent to my tent, and to be be clear, #10's are awfully small. Awfully small. Number 9's, now well, they do work significantly better than expected, despite the fact I wanted number 6's to work, I really did. But gee the 7 and 1/2's did get great percentages of kills.