Number 10 birdshot
 

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

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.

RST sells 10 loads as a woodcock round

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

AMEN!!!!!

Hi Dave. I appreciate the offer.
I'll PM you my info

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.

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.

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 .

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).

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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.