Number 10 birdshot

[todd allen]

After some discussion here about hunters using super small shot on grouse, myself, and a friend came up with a theory on why some of the old timers would use such tiny shot. I have no doubt that some early pioneers in North Easten grouse hunting had great success, on short range, dense foliage shooting. I am looking for someone to help by donating a small quantity of #10s for some ballistics testing, and a report to be shared here, or in the Parker Pages.
You can PM me, or email me at: Toddandcathyallen@gmail.com

[todd allen]

A little more detail. We need just enough #10 shot to chronograph at several yardages, (15 to 25 yds.) and do pattern and penetration testing. I've asked around a bit, and #10s don't seem to exist out here, and I don't want to throw a lot of money at it.
These old timers may have been on to something, (I think I know what it was). I would like to confirm just what happens, when the "rubber meets the road", so to speak.

[Rick Losey]

RST sells 10 loads as a woodcock round

[scott kittredge]

Todd,
I just checked what I have it is smaller than 10 shot at .040 to.045. 10 shot is .0669. ballistic products have 10 shot.
the stuff I have must be rat shot??? just started looking to see what I have ,it looks like 13 shot?
scott

[todd allen]

Thanks, guys. If RST will sell me a box, already loaded, that should do the trick.

[Rick Losey]

Todd,
I just checked what I have it is smaller than 10 shot at .040 to.045. 10 shot is .0669. ballistic products have 10 shot.
the stuff I have must be rat shot??? just started looking to see what I have ,it looks like 13 shot?
scott

it was called "dust" maybe its whats loaded for pistol shotshells, but as i understand it was used by those that collect bird specimens for taxidermy displays

[Rick Losey]

BTW, for what its worth. I wouldn't count on 10's as a grouse load, maybe woodcock in the earliest part of the season when the leaves are thick and the shots are close or not at all

[Tom Flanigan]

Todd, I’m glad you are doing some analysis on #10 shot. Your findings will be interesting and I hope you write them up for Parker Pages.
There is no doubt that the old time grouse gunners, probably to a man, were using sub size shot. Spiller, Schaldach and Foster used #9’s and the old time gunners I knew, my grandfather included, used #10’s.
All of the books, articles and gun company recommendations available to me as a 13 year old boy, beginning a lifetime of grouse shooting, recommended 7 ½ shot for Ruffed Grouse. My wisdom as a 13 year old told me that my grandfathers and others were wrong. I bought a box of high brass 7 ½’s to begin my first grouse hunt. My grandfather looked at them, chuckled, and said that we’ll go Larry’s (the local sport shop owner) and get you a few boxes of partridge loads before you hunt.
There was an article in Outdoor Life the following year, written by a guy that switched from 7 ½’s to 9’s and claimed that his birds to hand increased significantly. I thought to myself, maybe those old boys were on to something. I wish I still had that article.
However, the conventional wisdom of old timers is not always correct. We’ll see, but they sure took a lot of birds, myself included, with sub size shot.

[Rick Losey]

not that i can claim to be any expert

my normal for the uplands - back when we actually had grouse around here to run setters on, was 9's in the right tube and 8's in the left in the early season-

switching to 8's left and 7 1/2 or 7's if i had them later in the season - not because of the old tale about a grouse somehow getting thicker feathers in November vs October, but simply because the leaves were down and the shots were longer

Todd, if you test the 10's - a penetration on soft pine or a pad of wet paper might be interesting to see

[Tom Flanigan]

Using a size larger in the second barrel can be a good idea. I’ve done that often but not on grouse. My coverts are so tight that the bird is only in sight for a few seconds and a “longer” shot doesn’t often present itself.

I went to #8’s during the winter because the shots tended to be longer. It had nothing to do with feathers being thicker, an old wives tale.

I’ve used 6’s on grouse in Saskatchewan but only because grouse woods bordered my sharptail and hun areas and I hunted them at times just for the hell of it. I could get grouse back home, I focused my bird hunting on the sharptails and huns.

I have never used 7 ½’s on grouse.

[Tom Flanigan]

Todd, if RST is out of 10's, I can send you a box of 28 bore 10's that Morris gave me years ago. They were a gift so I never shot them. But they are what I consider the best grouse load for a 28 bore, the 3/4 oz. load of 10's.

[todd allen]

Penetration testing could be on pigeons, mostly. I know a family from Laos, btw, who will make good use of the birds, so nothing goes to waste.
Under controlled circumstances. I think we could pretty much duplicate what happened, back in the day.
Flyers would be shot with a 1906 BHE and an Underlifter.

[Dave Tercek]

I have a few boxes of RST #10 shot in 2" shells. I can send you a box. PM your address.
You probably won't see much penetration with shot that small. Is penetration even a factor in bagging a grouse ? I've skinned more than 200 grouse over the last 30 years, most of the shot is under the skin or in shallow wound channels in the meat. It would be a rare occasion for a pellet to find it's way into the heart or lungs. Most grouse are bagged by breaking a wing bone, or by hitting them in the head or spine.
More shot , denser patterns, will definitely give you better chance to hit these small areas.
Just my opinion, Dave

[Tom Flanigan]

OMG Dave...skinned? I've never skinned one though the practice is common. Personally I don't skin any birds. I always pick them. To each his own.

Some of the boys in Saskatchewan use to ride the roads though wooded areas in the evening to ground swat grouse. Before you think too poorly of them, these were guys who wanted to add birds to the family larder. Money is tight in northern Saskatchewan and one lady told me she grew up eating grouse shot off the roadways.

They didn't know the niceties of bird shooting, they just wanted meat. They didn't have the money to buy enough shells to become wing shooters, even if they wanted. One bird one shell was their mantra.

They "skinned" their birds by putting a wing under each foot and pulling hard on the legs. The breast came off sans skin. They laughed at me when I told them treating grouse this way was an abomination.

[scott kittredge]

it was called "dust" maybe its whats loaded for pistol shotshells, but as i understand it was used by those that collect bird specimens for taxidermy displays

yes, that's what my dad called it, Dust
tks

[Tom Flanigan]

Just one more note from my experiences, Dave. I believe the shot you saw just under the skin is shot that has passed through the body of the bird and has been stopped by the elastic nature of the skin on the far side. The same reason we often find spent bullets under the skin on the far side of where we hit deer or other big game.

If you look closely at the skin above the shot, I believe you'll find no hole in it. Some #9 shot will definitely penetrate through the bird to the other side. Some birds have broken wings but many do not.

I've often shot birds with just one broken wing and no shot in the body. These birds always flip dramatically on the side of the broken wing. They hit the ground running and I always get my dog quickly to the spot where they fell if the dog doesn't see it. The amount of ground they can cover quickly is amazing. Without a dog, it is a lost bird.

[Phillip Carr]

I have stated a number of times the effectivness of # 9 shot on pointed Mearns quail. My hunting partner likes the 10’s. I used #10’s spreaders this last season in my Remington 12 gauge DEO that is choked F/F. Shooting RST’s. Killed with authority. Under 25 yards I have nothing but positive things to say.

That said not so effective on the late season skittish Gamble and Scale quail. Shot some 6 and 7 1/2 shot, killed much better. These birds were getting up at 30 yards plus a lot of times.

[Dave Tercek]

Tom, I'll have to look a closer this October.

[Russ Jackson]

I always skin Pheasants and Pluck Grouse ,I also skin Woodcock for what this information is worth ! I have used #10 Shot in a 28 Gauge for years , it is for whatever reason a wonderful Woodcock load and seems to do well on Grouse also ! Like Dave T ,I really never thought shot penetration was a huge deal in Grouse or Woodcock as it surely is in Pheasant Hunting where I have even gone as large as #5 in late season birds that have had a lot of hunting pressure , Well Dave maybe it is just a Pennsylvania way of reasoning !:whistle:

[Tom Flanigan]

I don’t think penetration is a big deal in grouse hunting either although #9 shot will often penetrate the bird to wind up under the skin on the far side.

As far as skinning grouse, in my youth after tiring of picking a bunch of birds, I asked my grandfather if I could skin some of them to save time. He told me that anyone who skins a partridge doesn’t deserve to eat one. Harsh words but I got his point. I have never skinned a game bird.

Woodcock have a bit of fat under the skin on both sides of the backbone. Skinning would remove this fat which is beneficial in roasting. To each his own, but I’ll go with my grandfather’s ways.

Just a note, the New York city market of the 1800’s would never accept a skinned bird or one with a lot of shot in it. The market buyers were very particular back in the day.

[Reggie Bishop]

Game birds are plucked. Rabbits and squirrels are skinned. Also you don't cut the heads or fins off a trout!

[Tom Flanigan]

AMEN!!!!!

[todd allen]

I have a few boxes of RST #10 shot in 2" shells. I can send you a box. PM your address.
You probably won't see much penetration with shot that small. Is penetration even a factor in bagging a grouse ? I've skinned more than 200 grouse over the last 30 years, most of the shot is under the skin or in shallow wound channels in the meat. It would be a rare occasion for a pellet to find it's way into the heart or lungs. Most grouse are bagged by breaking a wing bone, or by hitting them in the head or spine.
More shot , denser patterns, will definitely give you better chance to hit these small areas.
Just my opinion, Dave
Hi Dave. I appreciate the offer.
I'll PM you my info

[Rick Riddell]

Interesting piece, I've always liked using 10's. Never had any issues with lost or running birds. There seems to be a lot of criticism regarding that shot size, but I think its knowing your gun and your limitations.

[todd allen]

So, I've got my buddy from Vegas over last Friday, for dinner. He's my hunting and shooting partner, for well over 30 years. Dinner's over, were sitting on the back porch enjoying an adult beverage, and I bring up the topic from Tom's welcome back post regarding hunting grouse with #10 shot. Chuck is as close to a ballistics expert as anyone this side of SAMMI, having done a lifetime of research on what drops a pigeon in the ring.
His first reaction is, whaaat? That's crazy! Next thing you know, we've got shot diameter, weight in grains, velocity, energy calcs, and journee's formula going.
Then, Chuck came up with a theory. I said, yeah, let's find out. We've got the guns, got the time and equipment, we need some number 10 shot. We will get to the bottom of this.

[CraigThompson]

Game birds are plucked. Rabbits and squirrels are skinned. Also you don't cut the heads or fins off a trout!

To each his own ! I “pluck” the breast from dove Grouse quail and pheasent . Heck the last several turkey I slam dunked got the breasts removed from them . I also remove the head and tail from trout . In my older age I do not have the time nor the inclination to pluck feathers from birds .

[CraigThompson]

To the best of my knowledge I’ve never fired any #10 or #12 shot I do however remmember reading about #12 a bit more in old dog training books and in a couple of Havilah Babcock books . The training books suggested dusting hard headed pointers/Setters at about forty yards (never was inclined to try) . Babcock suggested the would be quail hunter that had a hard time hitting should use these to get ones confidence back up on a covey rise (never was inclined to try that either).

[Todd Poer]

Interesting discussion. I am not certain how much energy it takes combined into pellet size and velocity to kill a grouse or any bird using lead shot, though I would dare say some are tougher than others. Here is the basic formula though but this mostly applies to single projectiles or bullets, but I guess also individual pellets as well:
Energy =mv^2/2.

Different pellets have different mass and loads create different velocities and in result energy. All things being equal more shot into the target has more energy. As to say maybe getting 7 or 8 number 10 shot into a grouse at 30 yards is better than getting only 5 or 6 pellets of number 8 shot into a grouse at the same distance. But obviously if shooting further out you would want larger shot that has more energy carrying capacity than smaller shot at greater distances.

There is a paradigm shift though when it comes to some shot. I think Jerry is proving this with his new Turkey loads he is trying that employs tungsten that is more dense and harder than lead shot and he has been able to demonstrate that he can get great patterns and penetration energy to kill turkeys with #9 shot at 50+ plus yards.

Also there are factors of shot deformity to consider when shooting small lead shot. This should be an interesting experiment.

[edgarspencer]

I think I use more pepper in a Bloody Mary than what these little guys pack.

[scott kittredge]

I loaded up 3/4 oz "13" shot in 20 ga. looks to be 2000 pellets + or - 500. I will try it on the skeet field soon. should "dust" them on station 1 low house or 7 high house.
scott
I just checked, there are 1800 12 shot for 3/4 oz so close to 2000 for 13 shot. I don't know how birds would eat if hit with 10 shot. lots of lead in it??, I will stick with 7 1/2's and 7's.

[Chad Hefflinger]

I was told by an old timer long ago, the small shot (9, 10 &12) was never intended for penetration, but rather for knock down capibility on smaller sized birds. Like swatting them with a lead racket. Even at closer ranges you would not destroy or make a bird inedible like a load of 6's or even 7 1/2 would. I know I had had great success with the RST woodcock loads.

[George Stanton]

I shot quite a few grouse back when I had my Gordon Setter, Kate. I didn't like #8s, and finally settles on 7 1/2 shot in the right cylinder barrel and 6s in the modified left barrel of my 16 ga. Fox. You guys will have to do a lot of convincing to get me to use 10 shot.

[Daryl Corona]

I have to agree with Scott and George on this one. With no disrespect to the previous posters, we all have our own theories on what loads, chokes, barrel lengths work for the chosen game. I just believe that 7 1/2's will cleanly dispatch any upland bird if the load is properly placed. By properly placed I mean between the tip of the beak and the leading edge of the wings, aka the head. Even if you are a little behind in your lead you will break a wing. I won't bore you with the numbers but pellet energy is what kills- not dense patterns of what amounts to lead dust. One or two 7 1/2's have that energy.

[todd allen]

I was told by an old timer long ago, the small shot (9, 10 &12) was never intended for penetration, but rather for knock down capibility on smaller sized birds. Like swatting them with a lead racket. Even at closer ranges you would not destroy or make a bird inedible like a load of 6's or even 7 1/2 would. I know I had had great success with the RST woodcock loads.

Well, without getting into a spoiler alert, we suspect that traditional birdshot penetration is not what is bringing these birds to bag. We will conduct the tests, and get some answers.
There is a formula here, but there are also some limits to the formula,, based on physics.

[Harold Lee Pickens]

My opinion is that 10 shot has no business being used for upland game birds--for the same reason, you can kill a deer with a 22 if you shoot it in the right place, but most will just run away and die somewhere else. Ever see a grouse juke sideways at your shot and then just keep flying on? It wasn't dodging your shot stream, you just put some BB's in it, and it probably wont survive. Follow those birds up, and you will get a weak flush, or the dog may bring it back.
I don't care much for 9's either, too many BB's in the meat. I'm ok with 8's, but 7's or 7 1/2's kill cleaner, the bird deserves at least that consideration.
Wasn't it Elmer Keith who said "Use enough gun".

[Tom Flanigan]

The old grouse gunners that I have been told about and known knew nothing of ballistics, penetration or anything technical. They didn’t use small shot for pattern density but in an effort to get some shot through very thick cover to the bird. That is all there was to it. Remember, their birds were not in relatively open coverts. They were snap shooting at often nothing more than a blur of a bird that would be gone in a few short seconds.

Not all grouse hunting involves snap shooting at distances better measured in feet rather than yards. I believe that the grouse hunting I did in Saskatchewan might be typical of many areas of the country where grouse are hunted, even in the northeast. Longer shots and a lot of walking for each shot. Just the opposite of my Pawling coverts where the birds are concentrated in relatively small areas due to especially thick cover and abundant feed which equates to bayberries, fox grapes and other types of berries.

I have never used 10’s but only because I couldn’t buy the shot. If I could have, I would have loaded 10’s and been happy to do so. So I can’t attest to the average number of shot in the body of a bird shot with those loads. But I can tell you categorically, from hundreds brought to bag since I was 13, that the average number of #9 shot in the body of my birds was three, sometimes four and rarely more than that.

I can only speak from the perspective of my own experience and those of the old time grouse hunters I have known. Others gunning other types of grouse coverts may have different experiences and will tend to gravitate to what works for them.

I can also in all honesty and good conscience, say that I have lost relatively few birds that carried shot and flown on to be lost. My pockets of covert are concentrated and I scour them week after week. I don’t hunt birds without a dog. If I was wounding a number of birds, I am confident I would see evidence of it.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just know what I have experienced and what worked for me and those who came before me. This has been a great discussion and I enjoyed all of the input.

[todd allen]

Some #10 shot is on the way. The answers are also on the way.

[James L. Martin]

I find this thread very interesting, for what's it worth I have hunted grouse and woodcock for over 50 years, I have killed over 500 grouse ,most in New York. I have tried 9,8, 71/2,7,6,5 shot .I have settled on 71/2 and 6. Late season just #6 shot. I believe you lose and wound birds with very small shot. I have used #10 shot in RST shells for woodcock and they worked good but they were close shots. I will be waiting the results of the tests on #10's.

[Phillip Carr]

The bird you are hunting and the situation dictates what a person uses. I dont like losing birds and I like eating them. I have been blessed to have lived my whole life were we have 4 1/2 months of quail hunting per year and I love to hunt.
I use what works for me. Im guessing each of us are using what works best in our own situations.
I dont shoot 9’s for every situation, but anyone the doubts the effectiveness needs to spend a day behind some good pointers out here in the grassy and oak covered hills.
My findings are like Tom mentions above. Very few pellets in the breast. Then again I shoot 90% of my pointed birds from behind and varing angles of the birds going away. Lots of close fleeting shots. I can't tell you the last time I lost a bird due to it being shot up.
The main factor in choosing 9’s over 6 or 7 1/2” is less meat damage while effective killing at closer ranges.

[Gary Laudermilch]

This has been an interesting thread and will continue to be so.

I've been hunting grouse for 50 years or more and have taken my share. To this day I examine every bird harvested for pellet performance as I have for years been somewhat of a student of shotgun terminal ballistics. I have my opinions on shot size, choke, and shot payload that I feel is appropriate for grouse.

I have heard numerous times over the years that grouse are easy to bring down. I could recount many, many events over the years that refute this claim. I'll cite but one illustrious example. I hunt a cover we now call the "headless grouse". Before it received this moniker my son and I were hunting it with my two setters. Dogs on point and son walks in for the flush. Bird gets up and I see it heading my way so I turn around to take it going away but my son shoots before it gets to me. Bird passes overhead but is flying oddly and making a get away but I did not shoot. Bird flies about 50-60 yards and comes to ground. It is completely missing it's head, the result of my son's 10 yd. shot. This is a weird example of grouse tenacity and is extreme, I admit. However, I could spend a day relating less dramatic examples of grouse that should have come down and did not.

So, my one word of wisdom is "Respect the Bird" as they are too precious to loose and worth far more alive than lost.

[Dean Romig]

Old habits die hard. I have a friend who will not use anything smaller than #6 shot for grouse. I use #8 in the early season while the leaves are still on and change to #7 or #7.5 when the leaves are down and longer shots are the norm.

A lot of Parkers as well as other SXS guns were choked F/F and i fail to understand why my 28 gauge VHE was choked that way with 26" barrels. It was made in 1922 so the days of market hunting were over but it sure wouldn't surprise me if the original owner might have shot a good many of his birds from a tree branch or on the ground. As I said, old habits die hard.





.

[John Dallas]

Sorry - IMHO this is beginning to sound like the debate about how many angels dance on the head of a pin

[Todd Poer]

Sorry not trying to belabor the discussion but I have been following this thread with great interest as well as the one with Jerry Harlowe and his #9 turkey tungsten shot reloads on a different thread (still blown away that size #9 anything could kill a turkey at 50+ yards from a shotgun). Have also yet to see first hand an atom split in a fission process but understand it can make a hell of an explosion and willing to take someones first hand experience word on it. Hats off to Todd Allen and his partner to tinker with it and tell us what they find. Its like that old show Mythbusters that I enjoyed.

I almost mentioned this the other day. Technically speaking person can probably throw a 1 ounce hunk of lead and hit a bird and kill it at about 10 to 15 feet away, maybe further. Apply that same logic to a single grain of sand and at same distance and that projectile would need to probably go 10,000 mph(pure guess) to kill the same bird. With that being said there are obvious limits on what smaller shot can do given the velocities and the mass of it fired from a shotgun. Also amazed table salt can kill flies using a table salt gun.

Obviously there are things that work well and don't work well depending on the specific performance and intended uses and given circumstances. Like Dean mentioned and maybe paraphrasing, but sometimes just because they did certain things back then doesn't mean it was the best practice but through trial and error found it worked for them in a limited capacity and they regularly employed it. Dare say it would even be hard to argue with them. However history is fraught with good thoughts, bad ideas and learned this one from a man with a PHD in Medieval Literature from Edinburgh and his hometown is Tullahoma Tennessee. Go figure.

Tom's old timer market hunters as described used small shot for close birds in dense cover, as gathered, so that shot would not tear up the game for sale as opposed to larger shot. They were hunting for a different pot. They also weren't gambling but were probably reasonably minded and confident in looking to get best result given parameters they had to work with. Is it the best practice today, maybe and maybe not but it met their needs and demands back then, right, wrong or indifferent. Does it make sense now, keeping an open mind, but probably not, unless they also used tungsten filings.

Sure I am probably getting this wrong but recall a handgun shooting instructor telling me years ago it takes about 600 to 800 foot pounds of energy in center mass to stop an average built man. Most handguns produce about between 200 to 500 feet pounds of energy per round, excluding 44 magnum that produces 850 lbs per round. Thinking is that unless your really good at shooting that 44 and handle recoil and are accurate, then its better to shoot a smaller caliber weapon accurately with less recoil with ability to place rounds close to same spot for more devastating impact. Getting two to three rounds in close proximity at 300 ft pounds of energy combined is proven to be more devastating an injury than say just one round from 44 magnum. Would hate to try an live on the difference but that is according to experts.

I think shotgun pellets work the same except your just need a lot more of their combined energy released. Again how many foot pounds of energy in one or more pellets does it take to harvest a bird and what is the energy difference per se between a #10 shot and #7.5 shot and at what distance does typical game load lead shot per size start losing effectiveness. Guessing but think Todd Allen maybe telling us, or not.

[scott kittredge]

I was told by an old timer long ago, the small shot (9, 10 &12) was never intended for penetration, but rather for knock down capibility on smaller sized birds. Like swatting them with a lead racket. Even at closer ranges you would not destroy or make a bird inedible like a load of 6's or even 7 1/2 would. I know I had had great success with the RST woodcock loads.
I was more concerned with eating the small pellets. when I hit a bird I always hit it center of pattern, so with 1500 pellets that would tell me it would have 700 to 800 hits:eek: a lot of you see how I shoot, so you know I am wright:whistle: :duck:
scott

[todd allen]

We're going to take what we learn, and add it to what we already know. As I stated before, I use nothing smaller than number 7 1/2s on game birds, with the caveat that I hunt (mostly) Western locales. I have killed plenty of grouse, but my preferred load has been an ounce of 7s.
Though my bird hunting experience spans about 50 years, the vast majority of birds I have killed have been box birds in the ring. That's where I met Chuck, some 30 plus years ago. Chuck, has made a life time study on what it takes to put a bird down, and can tell you with certainty, what size pellet will break a wing, at what yardage, and what any of the mainstream shot sizes are doing at whatever yardages they are still in the air. Despite what we already know, our collective knowledge on down range ballistics stops at shot size number 9.
My first reaction was to pooh-pooh the use of 10s on anything larger than dragon flies, but based on what I have learned here, 10s have been used quite successfully by some here, and evidently by enough old timers, that we just have to take a look, and see what we can learn.
I'd like to say thanks, to those who support our efforts.

[Tom Flanigan]

Although I have enjoyed all the responses and comments, I don’t want to belabor the conversation and repeat myself. But I will make a few comments before I back out of the conversation.

I have no experience using #10 shot on close cover grouse. Everything I have said about their use is secondhand from my grandfather and others who spent lifetimes in grouse coverts. I respect their opinions. I’m sure their grouse bags were far beyond anything I or other modern hunters have experienced. They had a wealth of experience on which to base their choice of loads.

All of these gentlemen, to a man, had an almost reverential respect for their partridge. They didn’t express themselves the way writers such as Spiller, Schaldach, Foster and others did, but they all shared the same love for arguably the finest of all game birds.

None of those gentlemen, or I, would use loads that we didn’t feel were effective killers. Lost birds are the nightmare of every caring hunter. They are a regrettable fact of life. It will happen occasionally despite our best efforts. But I am highly confident that my loads did not did not equate to a higher number of birds lost. I would have known it and I would have modified my approach if it did.

[Todd Poer]

Thanks for your efforts and sharing Todd. I think its interesting. Typically the smallest I like to go is 8 shot on quail and dove.

I still remember one cold day trying to break some cold clay targets stored in the barn when trying out a new 28 gauge and all I could find was #9 shot for it. Pretty frustrating knowing your hitting the target solid at about 15 yards and nothing breaking but seeing dust fly off. Then to pick up a 20 gauge with 7.5 shot at same distance and powder them. I know live game is not a clay target but at the time felt like I was shooting sawdust and that was 9 shot. 10 or smaller shot sounds almost like shooting talcum powder, but hey like most trying to keep open mind and indifferent and let your scientific approach playout.

BTW Tom I think you sharing what those old timers did is neat and appreciate your comments as well as many others do. They obviously used what they thinked worked for them and the given parameters and conditions of supply, demand and pricing. Hard to argue with their results. I am sure they maybe had to balance it in their thought process of which to use. Use 8 shot and kill the bird but not be able to sell it at premium price because shot up some, or shoot smaller shot and get em quick not have meat torn up. Like I said different pot they were hunting for maybe.

[Todd Poer]

oops

[Chad Hefflinger]

To clarify my earlier post. I do use RST 10 shot spreader loads in the right barrel early in the season and 8's in either standard or spreader in the left depending on the gun and choke of the left barrel. If I'm in one of our known woodcock haunts I will run 10 spreaders in both barrels. 90% of the woodcock shots are at 12-15 yards or less on the first shot and 20 yards max on the second. These #10 spreaders are absolutly the ticket for me at those ranges on woodcock or a grouse if I get the opportunity. As the leaves fall and the hunting becomes more of a grouse game with the odd chance at a woodcock, I switch to spreader #8's in the right and 7 1/2 or 7's in the left. That said depending on the info we get on the testing of 10 shot, I may look closer at a combination of 9's and 8's in the later season. Even later in the year when I think I have pulled off a longer shot on grouse, I bet I could count on one hand the number of times It took me more than 35 paces to get to where the bird fell. These birds are pretty easy to bring down, nothing like the wild pheasants I use to hunt out in Iowa. For those birds hunting with flushing dogs, I used nothing less than 6's and typically used a combination of 5's and 4's

[Jean Swanson]

Todd

Several years ago, Morris Baker and I were have a drink, a I brought up the subject of "mist " shot. I told him of my experience as a young woodcock and partridge hunter using, as I recalled ,number 11 shot. We loaded 2 inch shell, of which we cut & trimmed, to fit into his Purdey 12 & Parker 20 . I up to this conversation was using 8's & 9's.

Well the next time Morris and I got together , I was presented with a case of #10's ,two half inch, 28 bore shells----they fit my PHE 24"----I can only say DEADLY on woodcock & grouse---both these birds have small bones and my dogs did the rest to find the downed birds.

[Tom Flanigan]

Burton Spiller......"at 25 yards or less, no grouse can fly through the center of an evenly distributed pattern of #9 and come out alive".

William Harnden Foster...."a big vulnerable bird much softer than the Hungarian, the quail to say nothing of the dove and easier to kill with light shot" (he is talking about 9's and 8's)........."with the change to a larger pellet, he is sacrificing his required density for it should be remembered that while there are some 585 #9 shot in an ounce there are but 345 # 7 1/2." ......."your thoughtful grouse hunter will prefer to stick to his #9's and #8's throughout the season and, at the same time, to his conservative ranges."

[todd allen]

Alan and Tom, please don't misunderstand. My inspiration to do the testing is not to denigrate the use of number 10 shot, but rather, to find out how it works. And I believe it works, within it's range limitations.
This project is in good hands.

[Tom Flanigan]

Alan and Tom, please don't misunderstand. My inspiration to do the testing is not to denigrate the use of number 10 shot, but rather, to find out how it works. And I believe it works, within it's range limitations.
This project is in good hands.

That's a given Todd. I never thought different. I think that what you'll find is that more hits from a denser pattern (more shot in the load) with smaller pellets has a greater killing effect, within reason and on a "soft" bird, than fewer hits from larger shot. And I would guess a linear effect in increased killing power with more smaller pellets vs. fewer larger shot.

I am glad you are working this Todd.

[Todd Poer]

[QUOTE=Tom Flanigan;240696]That's a given Todd. I never thought different. I think that what you'll find is that more hits from a denser pattern (more shot in the load) with smaller pellets has a greater killing effect, within reason and on a "soft" bird, than fewer hits from larger shot. And I would guess a linear effect in increased killing power with more smaller pellets vs. fewer larger shot.

That is definitely the crux of the issue. How much energy does it take to kill a grouse or maybe other birds. Then comparing how much combined energy or number of pellets does it take for larger shot and smaller shot to achieve enough energy to harvest the bird. I think there is crossover point at some distance where at typical loads the smaller shot loses oomph because it decelerates or loses energy faster than larger shot. I guess what is its effective range.

[Jean Swanson]

To clarify my post.

I have always hunted woodcock and grouse over a dog or dogs, naturally most all my shooting was close,quick sight picture,and trigger pull. Woodcock being my favorite game bird. Larger shot always seemed to do more body damage to the bird than small shot, penetration. Grouse that did not get up under foot, I just did not shoot.

For pheasant hunting in the west, my favorite gun was a Parker 12,F/F with #6's in the right barrel and #4's in the left barrel.

I guess my conclusion would be, it certainly depends what you are hunting for.
A 22 would not be a good cartridge after elk,but a 338 Winchester Mag might be a better selection.

Just my 2 cents worth
Allan

Great topic !!

[Frank Srebro]

A nice grouse taken a few years back at 32 stepped off yards with a 16 bore Fox, right barrel with its factory IC choke. Actually the shell was in my coat pocket from woodcock hunting earlier that season and I thought I'd loaded a 7-1/2 in the Fox.

Although the bird dropped nicely it was an open shot and I wouldn't deliberately load 10's again for my grouse hunting here in PA. JMO but that's based on plenty of walk-up hunting over the years in our northern mountains. Generally I'll use 7-1/2's or handloaded 7's.

frank

[Tom Flanigan]

To clarify my post.

I have always hunted woodcock and grouse over a dog or dogs, naturally most all my shooting was close,quick sight picture,and trigger pull. Woodcock being my favorite game bird. Larger shot always seemed to do more body damage to the bird than small shot, penetration. Grouse that did not get up under foot, I just did not shoot.

For pheasant hunting in the west, my favorite gun was a Parker 12,F/F with #6's in the right barrel and #4's in the left barrel.

I guess my conclusion would be, it certainly depends what you are hunting for.
A 22 would not be a good cartridge after elk,but a 338 Winchester Mag might be a better selection.

Just my 2 cents worth
Allan

Great topic !!

I have seen the same tendency for heavier than required loads for shooting large game as I have for grouse hunting. Many feel that a 7mm magnum class rifle is needed for moose and other large game. What they don’t take into account is that recoil with magnum loads, while sighting in at the bench, encourages flinching and many don’t sight their gun in sufficiently or practice with it.

The aboriginal largely subsistence people in far northern Saskatchewan rely mostly on old model 94 30-30 Winchesters. They kill a lot of moose with these guns and one rarely hears of a lost moose.

I hunt moose in addition to ducks, geese and huns and sharpetails. I have taken a number of them and bears with a pre- 64 Winchester model 70 .270 shooting 130 grain handloads. I have never had a moose go over 75 yards from the spot where it was hit. Accuracy and bullet placement is the key.

I became close friends with the aboriginal people. Most of my ducks, geese, other birds I shot, including moose, went to them. They appreciated that and gave me permission to hunt tribal lands and showed me the best areas for moose. They watched Stoney my setter when I disappeared a few days for moose. They are wonderful people.

[todd allen]

I have a few boxes of RST #10 shot in 2" shells. I can send you a box. PM your address.
You probably won't see much penetration with shot that small. Is penetration even a factor in bagging a grouse ? I've skinned more than 200 grouse over the last 30 years, most of the shot is under the skin or in shallow wound channels in the meat. It would be a rare occasion for a pellet to find it's way into the heart or lungs. Most grouse are bagged by breaking a wing bone, or by hitting them in the head or spine.
More shot , denser patterns, will definitely give you better chance to hit these small areas.
Just my opinion, Dave

Thanks, Dave. A box of RST "Best" Grade 2" shot shells arrived today. We're one big step closer.

[Gary Laudermilch]

Well, Mr. Allen we are anxiously awaiting the results of the grand 10 shot test. Anything to report?

[Todd Poer]

Well, Mr. Allen we are anxiously awaiting the results of the grand 10 shot test. Anything to report?

Ha. Could not resist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQFxmAdyKcg

[allen newell]

#9 is as low as I go for grouse and woodcock. Thank God my good friend some years back shot me in the back of the neck with number 9's while woodcock hunting in Minnesota. I'd hate to have to dig out number 10 bird shot.

[Phillip Carr]

Possibly the next time Chris and Dale out of the Pheonix area and I shoot Eurasian dove I can video the shoot using #6 through #10 out of a 12 gauge and a 410. They are not grouse but still a fair size bird. Most birds are shot at grouse range or further. One thing I have noticed is if you center a bird within 25 yards most are humanly taken.

Not trying to convience anyone to change the load they are comfortable with, but would like to state that like others here have said, you can humanly take curtain game birds within a reasonable range and have birds that are not all shot up.
Pellets are easily found as feathers almost always are pulled into the bird.


Francottes 26” M&F 3/4 oz. #9

December 27 2016
http://parkerguns.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=63118&stc=1&d=1527650660

December 30 2016
http://parkerguns.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=63119&stc=1&d=1527651045

[Phillip Carr]

http://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/54335_600x400.jpg (http://www.jpgbox.com/page/54335_600x400/)

Not sure why the 1st picture does not show up.

[Tom Flanigan]

Mearns are beautiful. That is one species I have never taken. Since I have been a kid, I have been enamored with this beautiful bird. You are a very fortunate man.

[todd allen]

Well, Mr. Allen we are anxiously awaiting the results of the grand 10 shot test. Anything to report?

Dean R has it. Be patient. It will be out this summer.
Meantime, we need you all to be writing, and submitting Interesting Parker related stuff.