non-toxic shot and parkers

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Rick,

Long ago I gave up the autoloaders for waterfowl. If I have but 2 shots with up to $3 in each tube, I make those two shots count!

When hunting with my autoloader friends they would fill their limits sooner than did I. At week's end when comparing the number of ducks taken and number of shots fired my kill ratio was almost twice as high. That was with me not being as good a wingshot as those auto shooters.

I look at it this way. I work long and hard and make $xx per hour. If I need to shoot 7 or 8 times for 5 ducks even at $3 per shot it is still a great buy compared to other pleasures. Heck, the gas to drive to the hunting area probably cost me as much as the day's non-toxic ammo. So, if the ammo costs too much maybe one should stop taking risky shots. Isn't that what decoys are for, to lure the game into range...

Mark

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Mark Ouellette

Rick,

Long ago I gave up the autoloaders for waterfowl. If I have but 2 shots with up to $3 in each tube, I make those two shots count!

When hunting with my autoloader friends they would fill their limits sooner than did I. At week's end when comparing the number of ducks taken and number of shots fired my kill ratio was almost twice as high. That was with me not being as good a wingshot as those auto shooters.

I look at it this way. I work long and hard and make $xx per hour. If I need to shoot 7 or 8 times for 5 ducks even at $3 per shot it is still a great buy compared to other pleasures. Heck, the gas to drive to the hunting area probably cost me as much as the day's non-toxic ammo. So, if the ammo costs too much maybe one should stop taking risky shots. Isn't that what decoys are for, to lure the game into range...

Mark

Yes Mark and what will we do when lead is outlawed for all hunting? I use 1600 - 2000 shells year through a double to hunt crows. I guess when that happens I will trade in a Parker for a Rem 1100 and shoot the cheapest steel shot available. Non-Tox is completely impractical from an economic stand point for any high volume shooting whether game or clay. We tend to look at things and pass judgment through the narrow prism of how something affects us personnally rather than the overall impact on the shooting sports.

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by Mark Ouellette

Rick,

Long ago I gave up the autoloaders for waterfowl. If I have but 2 shots with up to $3 in each tube, I make those two shots count!

When hunting with my autoloader friends they would fill their limits sooner than did I. At week's end when comparing the number of ducks taken and number of shots fired my kill ratio was almost twice as high. That was with me not being as good a wingshot as those auto shooters.

I look at it this way. I work long and hard and make $xx per hour. If I need to shoot 7 or 8 times for 5 ducks even at $3 per shot it is still a great buy compared to other pleasures. Heck, the gas to drive to the hunting area probably cost me as much as the day's non-toxic ammo. So, if the ammo costs too much maybe one should stop taking risky shots. Isn't that what decoys are for, to lure the game into range...

Mark

autoloader??? they shoot ducks with pistols

I agree the cost doesn't stop me, but that doesn't mean its justified, with luck and or hard work, I can pretty much do what I like. although I do know it does affect some people.

Heck on the days I do drive to the office (its a 150 mile round trip in a 4Runner) I haven't had to sell a Parker or even a Fox or a bamboo rod for a tankfull - yet