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

My empirical testing of shot smaller than #7 1/2 is in dove fields where others are shooting and I am shooting with no interference from other shooters. Quite a few years ago, I opened up a quantity of doves and found that many had been hit with #9 shot, very common in dove fields. Many of the shot were just under the skin. I had been shooting #7 1/2 and shot only strong flying birds, by myself. The birds with #9 shot in them were flying to be shot at another day. That was enough for me. Today, I won't even shoot a quail in front of pointing dogs with #9. A couple of days ago, I shot a pointed quail, the third or fourth on a rise, at probably 35 yards or more. Contrary to popular (magazine) opinion, not all pointed quail are shot at 15 yards. Small shot lose velocity very fast and don't penetrate even at close range. Yogi accuses us of working off of a "chart" of shot sizes. Contrary to his flawed statement, we are working against the "chart". It is the "chart" guys that are shooting the #9 shot.

eight---actually I never see any charts that recommend 9's for birds, not in the quite a few years and not for grouse which was the thread topic and I'm not recommending 9's or 10's either for grouse, I'm merely trying to say that my experience is very fast, higher charged loads and "smaller pellets" does seem to have good results but certainly NOT just smaller pellets.

The last bird I shot last season was with a .410 using 11/16 oz of 7 1/2's. The bird was crossing at a paced off 60+ yds where I hit it and it fell at about 75+ yds. This load chronos at just 1100 fps. I am certainly convinced that shot size matters. You'll not find me shooting quail or dove with smaller than #8s with a preference for 7 1/2's. #9s are for skeet IMO. Even trap birds won't reliably break with #9s from my 410.

You're shooting at 60+ yard crossing birds with a 410? How many in that scenario are wounded and die a lingering death? Get real man! Ever hear of sport hunting and fair chase?

Modern day #9's if I recall right number to about 585/oz. the largest #10's in my 1890's chart go 822/oz. now that is quite a difference from the #9's. 5/8oz x 822 = 514 shot. That's equivelent to a 7/8 oz load of #9's. I simply cannot imagine taking such a load out after grouse. I never go smaller than #8 (4410/oz) for quail or dove, personally & usually use #7½. From articles I have read #10's used to be quite popular in small gauge, light loads for rail shooting, but the rail is a very small bird in comparsion to a grouse.
From reading old articles it seems many had the idea small shot slipped through feathers better than large shot. Perhaps this hunter had a similar false belief.

Wow. it looks like Bill Hanus could almost be the modern day Hammond---

http://www.billhanusbirdguns.com/archive30.html

I wonder how long it will take for the lynch mob to get down to florida, I mean OREGON!


higher velocities is the hinge pin

What would be the velocity of 3-Dram 5/8-oz. load?
Pete

CB, the shotgun, especially the 12g, does more wounding than any other gun known to man. Not a man here that has hunted more than a season can say they don't regularly see and do themselves wound birds. Anyone really concerned about wounding would never hunt birds with a shotgun. The odds of a wounding hit bird are astronomically higher than an instantly killed bird, no matter the gun size or shot size. Factor in the shooter's skill, pattern density, bird size, etc. Do the math. You want fair, climb in the ring with a predator of your equal weight and don't bring any weapon...that's fair. Any other hunting is very much one sided, nothing fair about it.


The bird was as dead when it hit the ground as it would have been if hit with a howitzer...or a 12g. It's about shot size, not bore size.

2-piper --- I guess I misunderstood. In your first post you wrote:

"In the above chart two towers produced #10 shot larger than Tateham's @ 822/oz"

Thus I thought our friend Hammond could very well have been using the BIGGER ones which would have been very close to number 9 shot if he used the sources that had the bigger than 822/ ounce number 10 shot. Then that would have meant the pellets were BIGGER than the .070 diameter of the Tateham for #10..and as we all know #9 is .079 diameter so I was assuming it was LESS than 9 thousands of an inch difference between the Hammond recommended load diameter shot and a modern day #9... Bottom line---not much difference! But it appears there is more than just a little difference...so I retract and agree #10 even in 1890's seems awfully small.

Howover, as we have been directed by sxs, Hammond was not just saying "use small shot", he was clearly indicating he had excellent results using much HIGHER velocities than factory or most any one was using in tandem with small shot. ...Hammond isn't alone in that finding but I think the very HIGH velocity element perhaps keeps getting missed. er... Like some grouse

I was going to stay out of this for fear of being flogged, BUT. Personally I use 7.5's for grouse and I would agree 10's sure sound small to me. Recently I picked up an older 16 that needs 2.5" diet and I think I am going to try Roy's idea of going to 6's.

That said, Burton Spiller swore by #9's for grouse. This was a man that would go back to his home to get one of his dogs, if the dog he was hunting over could not find a downed or wounded bird. He once went out the next day to find a wounded bird, because it so haunted him, and found it I might add.

There had to be something to the smaller shot size in times gone by. I don't know anything about Hammond, but anyone would be hard pressed to suggest Burton Spiller was not a humane grouse hunter.