|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
2 members (bbman3, MattH),
529
guests, and
5
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,499
Posts562,117
Members14,587
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,572 Likes: 165 |
John Alden Knight in his book on woodcock hunting, published in 1944, talks about using 10's on woodcock. I've read elsewhere about using what we'd consider today very small shot on grouse, like 10's. (I've killed them myself with 9's.) As others have noted, it seems to have been a much more common practice back in the early 20th or even 19th century.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7 |
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. Chuck this would mean 88 pellets (32%) in a 30" circle at 60yds. Am I right? Only a TOTAL of 98.56 grains in all of the circle?  JC
Last edited by JayCee; 11/29/07 09:47 AM.
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
Rifle and pistol ballistics are readily available and used by many enthusiastic hunters to judge their gun's abilities. Usually, they are concerned about bullet drop, but on larger game, residual energy levels are also a concern when distances increase. I've not seen this type of data published for shotshell residual energy/velocity. I think it'd be helpful to the hunter. The smaller shot, as we all know looses it's ability to penetrate adequately a given target more quickly than larger shot as the distance increases.
I'm guessing the guys that regularly use what is percieved as smaller than the norm shot size successfully, shoot relatively close shots. I don't imagine anyone is suggesting #8s for shooting roosters at 40 yds, especially for a tailpipe shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,227
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,227 |
Federal used to load 1 ounce of #10 at 3.5 dr eq. Wonder why they stopped? Useless, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7 |
Mike, #10 doesn't even appear in the table posted above.
The table is in "real size" BTW; only a RCH bigger.
JC
Last edited by JayCee; 11/29/07 11:57 AM.
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298 |
Yes #10 is a "real size" and it is approx .070 in diamter as compared to #9 which is approx .079 ( or rounded UP to .08) in diamater.
That is an ELEY chart. It does not list EVERY shot ever made. It also rounds up all the diameters to the nearest 1 one hundreth while some go to at least the thousands. Moreover, I do not see the terms "000 buck" or "0".
However, a nice chart indeed and good reference with valuable info. Thanks, JayCee!
If you read back to the first page of this thread you will read where 2-piper found a chart from the 1890's and explains that 10's were on it and the approx size ranges of some of the various makers of #10 shot in that period. The actual dimensional size of the #10 of the day, and specifically the size that Hammond used has some bearing upon this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7 |
Yogi, I never said #10 is not a real shot, only that it is not very much in vogue. :-)
JC
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298 |
Oh. I guess I didn't undestand. I thought you were asking.
Last edited by Yogi 000; 11/29/07 10:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 7 |
Chuck, sorry to nag, but 0.22 oz in the whole pattern at 60yds.
What bird was it?
JC
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 298 |
Jaycee thanks for fixing the post above. Now I DO understand. The unedited version looked to me like you were asking if #10 was a "real size".
I wonder what grouse in the 1890's in the US tasted like? If it was much different compared to 2007.
Sort of similar to sxs's original question about wondering what #10 shot might have actually been in the 1890's...
Last edited by Yogi 000; 11/29/07 04:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
