Todd's great article in Parker Pages

[Tom Flanigan]

Todd, I very much enjoyed and appreciated your article on #10’s in Parker Pages. You certainly did a thorough analysis even to the point of using live birds. It certainly provides some insight into the close range shooting done by my grandfather and market gunner Dee Slocum with #10’s.

I was surprised at the penetration of #10 shot. I have always used 9’s on grouse. I do believe that I am getting full penetration on grouse with some of the 9’s. Nines are not all that much larger than 10’s. So I was a bit taken aback at the penetration of #10 shot. I have often found #9 pellets just under the skin of my birds. But I always believed that these were pellets that went all the way through the bird to end just under the elastic skin on the far side. This is the same effect as finding bullets in big game on the far side just under the skin. The bullet does not have enough remaining energy to exit the elastic skin. There were no entrance holes in the skins of my birds above the pellet and I used to have to pierce the skin of the bird to remove the shot. Also, many of my birds had feathers pulled into the wound channel of the shot. So a mystery still remains. I will do a careful post mortem on all the grouse I shoot this year. The analysis continues……

[terc]

Great article, Thanks.
I've always believed that knocking a bird out of the air required a head shot or a shot that would break a wing bone or the spine in the neck area.
The wing bones of a bird are under a lot of stress while in flight. A nick from a pellet will cause the bone to break.
If penetration to the vitals area (heart) is the goal, I think the bird would fly a long way before it actually fell.

[Tom Flanigan]

Dave, I don't believe that wings need to be broken or a head shot is required to bring birds down. I have killed many with no broken wings and no aparent head wounds. . Nor do I believe that a pellet through the heart is a goal or necessary. The grouse is a soft bird. It's been my experience that multiple shot in the body will bring them down, regardless of a heart or lung shot. It's probably the shock of multiple hits that bring them to earth. It is true that some of these birds will have to be dispatched. But they do come down rather easily. The woodcock is a soft bird also. They seem to come down regardless of where they are hit. I read once where someone said that at least four pellets need to hit the bird to bring them down. It may be true of ducks and pheasants (but I doubt it) but it doesn't hold for grouse or woodcock.

[todd allen]

Originally Posted by Tom Flanigan

Todd, I very much enjoyed and appreciated your article on #10’s in Parker Pages. You certainly did a thorough analysis even to the point of using live birds. It certainly provides some insight into the close range shooting done by my grandfather and market gunner Dee Slocum with #10’s.

I was surprised at the penetration of #10 shot. I have always used 9’s on grouse. I do believe that I am getting full penetration on grouse with some of the 9’s. Nines are not all that much larger than 10’s. So I was a bit taken aback at the penetration of #10 shot. I have often found #9 pellets just under the skin of my birds. But I always believed that these were pellets that went all the way through the bird to end just under the elastic skin on the far side. This is the same effect as finding bullets in big game on the far side just under the skin. The bullet does not have enough remaining energy to exit the elastic skin. There were no entrance holes in the skins of my birds above the pellet and I used to have to pierce the skin of the bird to remove the shot. Also, many of my birds had feathers pulled into the wound channel of the shot. So a mystery still remains. I will do a careful post mortem on all the grouse I shoot this year. The analysis continues……

Thanks, Tom. It was a lot of fun doing the research, and kudos to my friend, Chuck Altenburg (PGCA member) for his help.
BTW, the testing was done with a beautiful BHE 12, with 32" barrels, imp cyl Rt, and full choke Lt bbls. Left barrel was not needed.

[Dean Romig]

To once again set the record straight - I erred in attributing that fine article in the by-line to Todd Poer. It was NOT written by Mr. Poer but was written and contributed by Mr. Todd Allen.
Again - My humble apologies gentlemen.





.

[B. Dudley]

Wow!

[Southpaw]

Oh the Travesty eh Brian

The article has now been officially Re-Todded to correct party. I am no Silence Dogood and willfully and humbly abdicate any and all claims, accolades and notoriety caused by said misprint. When PETA gets a hold of article and starts calling, will gracefully tell them to pound sand.

btw Congratulations and thank you Mr. Allen to you and your colleague/co-conspirator for your fine work and sharing the outcome of your efforts. Not certain how the mistake happened since Dean and I the other day were discussing whether the thingy attached to the dumaflauchy was called a Fore-End or Fore-Arm.

A small misprint should no way shade your efforts.

[B. Dudley]

Originally Posted by Todd Poer

Oh the Travesty eh Brian

Easy for you to say...