I pose a question for the readers of this forum. As lead shot is and will be eventually banned,steel shot will be the only economic alternate for most shooters. The problem is that we are trying to use steel in guns that were never intended to use it.
The 12 bore cartridge has changed very little since its general adoption 150 years ago, Ok components have changed so has the powder but in essence it is still the same and bore sizes although standardised across the world have remained unchanged.
Compare the 8 common shot gun bores the the hundreds of rifle calibers that have come and gone in the same period. Thus we need to start from scratch and design a new cartridge.

The challenge is to design a ballistically perfect cartridge that will replace the old 12 Ga [et al] 1& 1/8 oz load. Then to design a barrel to shoot it from . It may end up as an 11&1/4 Ga 2 &11/16 ,or some other weird size, you may need 2" chamber cones and continuous taper chokes . I don't know. I have neither the knowledge or skill with computer aided design to do so,but I see no reason why it can not be done.
Lets be honest there are millions to be made and if you do, please remember it was my idea.

I think that ship has already sailed.

One of the biggest mistakes is that of referring to all non-lead shot as 'non-toxic shot' which implies we somehow accept that lead is therefore toxic in nature. Even common table salt is toxic if you eat enough; and so is lead if you are stupid enough to ingest enough. Most lead shot passes through the system intact without causing much harm. How many people do you know wh have died from eating it? Why is the area around well established clay pigeon shoots not a mass of dead and dying animals? Because lead is not that toxic that it needs banning. It is just convincing those who pass laws to understand this and for us to not allow those who seek to ban shooting in all its forms by cusing laws to ban lead shot to be enacted. There are plenty of new guns that can handle steel. Steel is a very poor alternative to lead and probably cripples more than it kills. I won't use the rubbish. It's o.k. for clays as the disciplines can be adjusted to cope with its poor ballistics. It will be a sad day for shooting if lead is banned. Bismuth and Tungsten will be in such demand that there will be a great shortage worldwide and game shooting will be priced out. I would like to see good concrete evidence that it is harmful. If shown that is the case I will be the first to stop using it and give up shooting. Lagopus.....

With current economies, no one will touch it within 10 years, if ever. Manufacturing is holding on for its life, no mood for innovation to accommodate waning numbers of hunters. As for a ballistically perfect cartridge, there are too many variables of range and game. I think my 7 X 57mm rifle has "ballistically perfect" loads for my needs in eastern Canada. Those who hunt the mountains of western Canada or Alaska have different notions entirely.

King, I think your 7 X 57mm will do just fine in the western mountains, no matter where they are located.

Thanks, Don, I didn't want to be TOO partisan!

Lapogus you have pointed out that steel shot isa poor substitute for lead ,I agree but my point is that you are not useing a gun or cartridge that is designed for steel shot .This like trying to do is strap a couple of turbo jets on to a DC3 and wonder why the wings come off. A 12 bore cartridge is not suited to steel shot in the same way.

It really doesn't matter what size you bore the hole down the bbl, this isn't going to correct the faults of steel shot. The fault of steel shot isn't in the size of bore, but in the density of the metal.

Rifles are an entirely different matter than shotguns due to the multiple pellets of the later vs the single projectile of a rifle. Compare the ballistics for instance of a 180 grain .30 cal bullet with that of a 180 grain round ball (approx .50 Cal).

If for instance you could come up with little steel bullets, .130" in dia & having a round nose with sufficient length to weigh the same as a #4 lead pellet & could keep them point on as they went down range then the steel would be as effective as the lead. Doing this though is not a matter of hole size in the barrel.

The shotgun is pretty much saddled with little round pellets.

When the market demands steel loads safe for old doubles the major maunfacturers will develop, produce, and sell them. Thicker wads to slip through tight chokes that also will not release shot until they leave the barrel will be safe for our cherished SxS's.

Increasing the velocity to compensate for the steel pellets lower density and retained energy will be hard on 100 year old stocks! I do think that some smart engineer will figure it out when there is sufficient demand to justify investment in the research and development, and production of such ammunition.

Mark

The idea is a new caliber for a new gun .

Guys who have stuck with it will tell you that steel already works well enough for waterfowl. The problem is making it work as well as possible for upland game. And, for those of us who shoot "classic" shotguns, making it work--to the greatest degree possible--in century old guns. The CIP has already developed guidelines for steel shot loads that they consider to be safe in guns that meet standard CIP proof (850 bars). Basically, their requirements for ammunition that meets CIP standards limits shot size, velocity, and pressure. The same loads should work in vintage American guns in good condition. I don't believe any of those loads are commercially available in the States currently, but they probably will be--or some American manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon and produce similar loads.

These loads will not be as good as lead, if for no other reason than the fact that steel is inferior, ballistically, to lead. But they will provide a cheaper option than the soft nontox shells for those of us with vintage guns.

I've never shot steel at waterfowl but I've saw it shot and shot and shot and shot at the same waterfowl numerous times.

"Works well enough".....I'd agree it's better than shooting nothing.

There aren't any manufacturers that give a rats ass about a sliver of the already rapidly-declining hunting community, namely, old guys who dearly love their old guns.

I will never give up feeding my dearly loved old guns a diet of lead shot.

I don't break clays of any kind, I only use my guns to hunt with, which most seasons is not nearly enough.

The only living beings I pose a danger to are the upland birds I kill, which most seasons are not nearly enough.

Some British cartridge manufacturers produce steel loads that are deemed safe for use in lighter English proofed guns. The ammunition has been through proof tests but is cautioned against use in anything tighter than half choke. I did a bit of experimenting and used them out of an Ithaca 37 pump action with Modified choke. I have also tried them through a Beretta 20 bore. I was dissatisfied with the performance finding that there seems to be just a narrow band of effectiveness. Too close and it will blow things to bits; a little tiny bit farther out and it wounds more than it kills. I do find the Ithaca 12 with steel pellets very good for trimming those hard to get to tree branches and that is all I now use them for; well that and blowing out crow nests and squirrel dreys.

A lot of ducks shot here in Britain find their way to the game dealer for onward sale. A lot of game dealers will not accept them if shot with steel as their cutomers, which are the stores, will not have them for fear of people breaking their teeth and complaining. Lagopus.....

I've seen it shot at pheasants, numerous times, by a long-time hunting partner. He shoots mostly modern autoloaders, hunts a preserve where nontox is required, and hunts public areas in MN and SD (and used to do the same in IA) where the rule is also no lead. So he made the decision to shoot it all the time. Me, I'll stick with lead as long as I can, and I'll fight like heck to make sure we can ALL stick with lead--until the nontox proponents can come up with the "good science" to show that it poses a real danger, to either the birds we shoot or to the humans who consume the game. That being said, I've seen wild roosters fly off crippled carrying both lead and steel pellets, and I've seen them killed with both lead and steel pellets. Although I'll never be convinced steel is as good as lead, I am already convinced it's better than its detractors are prepared to admit.

Steel (iron) shot will never equal lead shot period. Yet stell shot used properly is a very effecient shot. Biggest problem is waterfowl hunters don't have the foggiest idea how far 40 yards is, plus have not patterned their guns with the diffenet steel loads available. I spent a lot of years observeing waterfowl hunters when lead was legal and most didn't know how far 50 yds. was, and when they switched to steel their range estamation didn't improve. Goose hunters were the worst at it.

Steel shot was just an easy way out of a drummed up problem .

I reckon that if I did not care too much about good shotguns and could be happy shooting the guns which are built to be safe for steel shot, then perhaps steel shot would not seem like such an abomination to me as it does now. However I have developed preferences in guns over the years, and I find that I want to shoot guns which balance well and which are a pleasure to use. This type of shotgun and steel shot in my opinion are mutually exclusive and do not belong together. So this factor together with the way steel shot does not work as well as lead make me unhappy with the idea of ever shooting steel again. Shotshell manufacturers should be taken to task for all their promotion of steel loads and their failure to provide economical non-lead loads which are safe in good guns.

Exactly, GWWs. The by now hackneyed adage "Life's too short to hunt with an ugly gun" is simply true. I know I could never work up the enthuiasm to get out of bed on a chilly early morning to ride out to the woods so I could roam for hours with my Benelli and little ball bearings. Killing is not that high on my priority list. If that day ever came I know I wouldn't tote a steely death-ray, I'd simply stop hunting birds.

Well, there are barrel-safe options. Unfortunately, they're all pretty expensive--and I don't think even a total ban on lead will result in inexpensive, barrel friendly nontox loads appearing. But unless you hunt a whole lot, the extra cost isn't going to send you to the poor farm.

Larry, I know you're right. I realize if the day did come I wouldn't be relegated to the auto-crowd. I guess I'm just on a jag where I'm so sick and tired of the lack of rational thinking in this country when it comes to hunting, guns.....I'll stop there. That surely is enough.

Also, to be completely selfish, I have a nice collection of 19th century British BP Percussion shotguns (and 1 rifle), and it's tough enough working up adequate loads for those unchoked beauties with lead! Can you even use non-toxic alternatives in muzzleloaders? That could actually be the deciding factor for me, so I'll put my anger and ire away until I find the answer to that question!

KK, I agree with you. But if we all put heat on our lawmakers every time they're considering an unnecessary nontox requirement, we can keep lead alive and kicking. Most additional lead restrictions will have to come from the states, and on that level we've been pretty successful in defeating them.

Kid,
I used bismuth in my older muzzleloaders. I've never seen anyone use steel in a muzzleloading shotgun new or old. But it’s getting expensive to operate them after bismuth went out of business selling shot to reloaders.

Although I haven't yet tried it, isn't Nice-shot supposed to work well in older guns? They seem to provide a lot of loading data.

Has anyone here used it?

Gunman I see the thread you started about a possibly interesting discussion of a new cartridge and gauge designed to shoot steel shot has diverted to a defense of lead shot. You might try again over on Shotgun World or Trapshooters.com. You might specify upland, clays, or waterfowl.

It seems we have adopted a stance and we defend lead shot at every opportunity.

I am all for lead shot and do not think it's day is nearly over.

Best,

Mike

Well said, Larry, and many thanks for putting the train back on the rails.