The old Lyman shotshell handbook had a chart which listed shot sizes from #2 down to #9 with the various MV's to which each size was normally loaded at the factories. Figures were given for each size & MV for Vel, pellet energy, Time of flight & drop in inches for ranges of 20, 40 & 60 yds.
If one takes #'s 8 & 9, (#8 is 42.7% heavier than #9 thus has that much more ME) each loaded to 1200fps @ 40 yds the #8 retains 5.7% more vel & 60% more energy, quite a gain.
Note also these #9 shot are 40% heavier than even the heaviest #10 listed in the 1890'schart. Their 20 yd energy would likely be no more than the #9's 40 yd energy. There simply is no way for them to work on a bird as large as a grouse other than having so dense a pattern a vulnerable spot will be struck. The game would have a peppered appearance. This found to an extent that is unsatisfactory to me even with #9's. I simply never go smaller than #8 on game & then only on smaller birds. I recall years ago a midwest shooter, Bert Popowsky, or similar, advocating the use of #9's for shooting crows. He stated the actual body size of a crow was much smaller than most realized, which I believe is correct, & that the dense patterns gave very quick kills, on this I also suspect he was correct. He of course was not taking them for the "Pot".
The small amount of game I have shot with #9's all fell dead quickly, however even at normal ranges they were for the most part too blood shot to eat. One could of course go down to ½oz of #9 & have around the same anumber of shot as 3/4oz of #8. The #8 load would of course be a much superior killing load but would leave the game no more unedible. In this regard it's not so much the size as the quanity of shot in the bird. Just my thinkings, but I think we have learned a lot about shotgun ballistics in the past 109 years. It seemingly worked for him & is interesting reading, but I have no desire to duplicate his method.
