Gun Dog Forum

Posted: **Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:29 pm**

So I've made the decision to switch to all steel for my upland hunting. What is everybody having success with we're are you buying your shot and what chokes do you like .

Posted: **Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:23 pm**

I've tried 12-1-7s, just to see.
Worked ok through a skeet choke for pointed grouse and woodcock both when it was slid in the chamber...course, not much won't work for the little bogsucker.
With a ruffed grouse, you are setting up a more narrow range of effective yardage and requiring greater decisions to shoot, or not.
So, if not required to use steel and in planning to use steel over a upland season, the idea appears ill-advised, to me...thinking of the bird...first.
As well, environmentally, there is no reason to use steel in the uplands.

The reality is that, as with woodcock, a well-pointed and well-triggered shot will kill a ruffed grouse, pretty much independent of the load.
What you will get in response to the question will be personal anecdotes, as mine, that mean little to nothing.
If you can live with less, then use steel.
I just believe that the ruffed grouse always deserves more, within reason, rather than less if there are no legal requirements to fulfill.

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:17 am**

Try Eley Bismuth 7's if you're concerned with the environment. Steel is an inexpensive alternative.

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:44 pm**

As said steel shot performs poorly. I honestly believe more game has been wounded and lost due to the weak killing of steel than were ever harmed by lead. Like most environmental cures, it was ill concieved and poorly executed.

As also said, if it makes you feel better use bismuth or tungsten.

I also believe that way too many of the leadership of US fish and Wildlife are down right anti-hunting. Proof is the few that hunt, which should be an employment requirement. It is like working at the FFA and not fly.

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:55 pm**

Some gamebirds are quite fragile and respond better to the weaknesses of steel than others.

Just as some farmers do not fly airplanes.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:06 am**

Kent used to make an inexpensive steel upland load, 1 oz # 7, 12 ga, the added bb's in steel compared to the same weight of lead make up for any differences at the early season closer ranges we shoot the thunder chickens at!! Just make sure you pattern the loads and use open chokes.

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:16 pm**

Having used steel shot in one form or another since the late 70's I disagree that steel shot cripples more game. While I still like to use lead where I can I shoot about half of my birds each year with steel. I have never patterned any of my guns or shells. I never saw the need, if I do my part the bird falls. My choke of choice is IC for ducks,geese, pheasants,doves and cylinder for Ruffed Grouse. Steel loads usually have high velocity than lead and require less lead at ranges under 40 yds. JMHOhttp://gundogforum.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=81&t=44104#

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:58 pm**

I only use steel for waterfowl since its the law and I have no choice. Otherwise - theres no way I'd use it for grouse and woodcock. To sum it up - steel shot just sucks.

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:24 pm**

msuhunter wrote:Having used steel shot in one form or another since the late 70's I disagree that steel shot cripples more game. While I still like to use lead where I can I shoot about half of my birds each year with steel. I have never patterned any of my guns or shells. I never saw the need, if I do my part the bird falls. My choke of choice is IC for ducks,geese, pheasants,doves and cylinder for Ruffed Grouse. Steel loads usually have high velocity than lead and require less lead at ranges under 40 yds. JMHOhttp://gundogforum.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=81&t=44104#

Of the hundreds of duck hunters I know, you are the first to make that claim. Since you don't pattern your guns and loads, you have no idea of those you almost missed, but were wounded. Inside 25 yards steel will kill, at 40 yards not always, even with 3 1/2" 2's. Steel was a bad solution to a nonexistent problem.

I pattern and used to kill over 100 ducks a year and 5 times that number of snows.

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:50 pm**

So your saying lead never crippled birds? I don't need to shoot at birds over 40 yds most of my hunting is upland and steel works just fine. Since Steel has been around 30 plus years a great many hunters have never used lead on waterfowl. Steel shotshells have come a long ways since the late 70's. If I were to hunt waterfowl more I would probably spend some time patterning. I let you in on a secret, lead ain't coming back for waterfowl and it is a safe bet that in the years to come it will be required on any state or federal lands for any type of hunting. It you shot as many birds as you claim you probably shot a lot of them with steel right. If I could afford hevi-shot I would shoot it, quality lead shells cost about the same as steel . We may not like it but its not going away.

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:55 pm**

Sure we crippled some birds with lead, but not nearly as many as with steel, for sure more than died from ingesting lead. 3 1/2" helps, but not enough.

I take offense with your statement, "If you shot as many birds as you claim -". Insinuating I make untrue claims.

It is my sincere hope the anti hunting, tree huggers at US Fish and Wildlife will be replaced with people that have actually hunted, and the non-toxic shot nonsense will end. I hold game in too high regard to needless wound them, if they mandate non- toxic for upland, and I can't afford bismuth or tungsten, I will quit hunting before I use steel.

Posted: **Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:01 pm**

steel shot sucks spend a little extra

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:37 am**

Just so the OP does not get distracted from his original question in favor of the steel vs. waterfowl imbroglio...again, the two birds he mentioned are quite soft and steel will work just fine within the limits of the choke, the ability to direct the steel correctly, if the steel matches the bird and the decision of when to shoot, or not shoot is made wisely.
Appropriateness for the particular scattergun is the real bugaboo as upland often lends itself just a bit more to using the older scatterguns.
However, steel is not the best shot for grouse and woodcock so the question really is...why use it when not required past satisfying the need to know if it works?
I'd pick other areas if I needed to make a statement of some manner....each to their own need.

There will never be a reversal of lead shot requirements and it has nothing to do with USF&W personnel any more than the mismanagement of the national forests has to do with NF personnel.
The blame lies first with the Public, for both.

One could quit hunting if non-tox was universally required and steel was all that was available.....Opie once threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue.....Andy let him and the world still spun.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:58 am**

The US Fish and Wildlife has nothing to do with the non-toxic shot requirement? Are you rewriting history? They rigged some phoney studies, held some hearings where they did not listen to hunter input, and published the new rules, resulting in a lot of wounded birds. And I am sure you are right it will never be reversed, but we have more influence with state game and fish, the commisioners tend to be hunters and more importantly, listen to hunters.

I recognize that I am insignificant, no one cares if I hunt or not. But thanks for reminding me.

And I think the non-toxic rules has everything to do with the OP, he is wanting to voluntarily use steel. A bad idea. It is simple physics - steel has much less density than lead, so when you go to bigger shot to compensate you lose payload and killing power.

The logic to pick your shots and improve your skill would also apply to a boomerang, which would be better than steel.

Of all the Fed agencies I have encountered, Fish and Wildlife are the least responsive. And one of the few that is funded by those they regulate

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:52 am**

Neil wrote:
It is my sincere hope the anti hunting, tree huggers at US Fish and Wildlife will be replaced with people that have actually hunted, and the non-toxic shot nonsense will end.

As a devil's advocate:

It is hard for that to happen when aftermarket choke companies market their chokes to "shorten shot string....creating more cleans kills or misses, than cripples."

I have been using fiocchi nickel plated lead this season in the twenty gauge for grouse and it has been doing the trick so far. I haven't had the reason to switch.

Another devil's advocate would be what a very well respected waterfowl personality told me about shot size: "I use BB when I can, from honkers to teal. Less pellets screw up the meat."

One season I used kent silver steel no.2 for pheasant and did just fine. My advice, from reading a ton and using the advice, is use two sizes bigger for steel i.e #7 in lead is #5 in steel. The farther the BB travels from the muzzle, the said BB needs to be heavier to sustain enough kinetic energy. With steel, that equates to throwing a bigger size pellet. The drawback is less payload, but if you are a good shot less pellets thrown really doesn't matter, the energy of the pellet thrown does matter.

In terms of crippled upland birds, I have seen plenty of birds shot with lead, keep going, and then keel over two hundred yards from the first shot. For example, I had to heel my two dogs so that a gentleman could come toward us to find his bird that sailed in our direction. In this case, it is not just what you use that creates the cripple, it is the person shooting that causes it. I have even shot flushed birds that were shot days before by an unsuccessful hunter. Many guys use smaller pellet sizes because they want that extra handicap going for themselves. Bigger shot size isn't always a bad thing, at least in my experiences.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:04 am**

Neil wrote:The US Fish and Wildlife has nothing to do with the non-toxic shot requirement? Are you rewriting history? They rigged some phoney studies, held some hearings where they did not listen to hunter input, and published the new rules, resulting in a lot of wounded birds. And I am sure you are right it will never be reversed, but we have more influence with state game and fish, the commisioners tend to be hunters and more importantly, listen to hunters.

I recognize that I am insignificant, no one cares if I hunt or not. But thanks for reminding me.

And I think the non-toxic rules has everything to do with the OP, he is wanting to voluntarily use steel. A bad idea. It is simple physics - steel has much less density than lead, so when you go to bigger shot to compensate you lose payload and killing power.

The logic to pick your shots and improve your skill would also apply to a boomerang, which would be better than steel.

Of all the Fed agencies I have encountered, Fish and Wildlife are the least responsive. And one of the few that is funded by those they regulate

W/o playing the victim, the world spins regardless of what any of us do on any issue in the uplands...that being the point.

I did not say that the USF&W had nothing to do with non-tox regulations....with any government folk, the Public has the ability to influence regulations despite what you believe.
Fact is though, most individuals do not hunt and many of the Public see Lead anywhere as bad...much the same as they mistakenly fear the word Clearcut.
Those folks do not care to understand that generalizing a problem so widely or understanding one so poorly is a bad deal...game to non-game to hunters to non-hunters and on.
As a result, ignorance digs a foothold and pioneers the way forward regardless of reality...an old story with far more chapters than one on steel shot.

Certainly, it is easy and popular to slam any federal employees.....and I have seen some that the slam fits and others I have met are stuck in what is more and more a political system driven by keeping a job before doing a job.
I'm not a fan of steel in the uplands, or anywhere, as I noted but it can and does work within it's limits.
Too many though love to whine about steel shot or love to remember days when steel had more issues than at present with a learning curve for steel's use that was new....they would rather whine than make lemonade in other words.

As to DNRs listening more....that may well hinge on the state, it is certainly not true in Ohio nor in Pennsylvania.
If they listened to the loudest Pennsylvania hunters then Alt would never have worked his magic and early successional would still be browsed to death.
Granted, DNRs take the first heat and so can appear to give the first ear....ultimately though, DNRs are also political and each particular state has plusses and minuses as regards a response to hunters of whatever.

Sorry, the OP's woodcock and grouse do not require the "killing power" of a duck, goose or even, wild pheasant.
Choose the load correctly, point correctly, trigger correctly and go pick up the dead woodcock. :roll:
Yes, birdhunters are required to make decisions.....that would appear obvious, even to one mired in a blinding hatred for little metal spheres.

Less response the higher one goes in any system...I do agree with that idea.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:44 am**

I am getting use to people not reading or remembering my posts, but you would think they could bother to remember their own words. You said -"USF&W has nothing to do with it-". Please read your first post.

I am retired from the Federal Government, I don't bash goverment agencies without cause. US Fish and Wildlife is antihunting and non-resposive. I fought with them 4 years as they closed state field trail grounds in the upper mid-west if one dime of the purchase or maintainence came from Pittman- Robinson funds. The Forrest Service is not funded by hunters.

Not sure why you think of me as a whacko. I am measured in my dislike of steel and Fish and Wildlife.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:47 am**

Mountaineer wrote:
There will never be a reversal of lead shot requirements and it has nothing to do with USF&W personnel any more than the mismanagement of the national forests has to do with NF personnel.

n.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:04 am**

As is all too normal for folks responding on message boards, "nothing to do with" also included more words in that sentence than you cherry-picked.
Low shelf to cherry-pick....easy, but low shelf.
*Ah, I see you subsequently added the "anymore"....good for you.
But, try to understand the difference twixt blanket condemnation of personnel and decrying policy.
Then, work on your comprehension...try reading all my posts in this thread for a start.

Did I say whacko? :roll:....No, but I did say whining and you were whining.
I have whined about upland issues myownself...happens when we care about stuff and see a bad trend developing or have had a bad taste put in our mouths.
However, that is all more of a backstory to any response then representing any logical and real-world answer to the OP's quite direct question.
Nothing you said indicated much experience with the OP's question or the reality of swatting relatively fragile grouse or woodcock....perhaps you should not have responded and, instead, waited until a thread began that you could bring in your waterfowl/steel experiences....and the angst against the USF&W service.

*As a note, I attended a RGS meeting once and their biologist was giving the company song and dance routine as to grouse management, et al....next to me was a grouse hunter and also a retired PHD with the USF&W(I reckon that some USF&W folks hunt birds :roll: ).
Understanding past the smoke and mirrors, he raised questions that cut to the chase.....the biologist's eyes blinked as his only response.
Glad the USF&W fella was there.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:23 pm**

Look steel is a poor choice, and should not be used. That was and is my response to the OP. To use it is irresponsible. There are other non-toxic alternatives.

You met one Fish and Wildlife former employee that was a hunter, I have met 2. All three of our sample were retired, former employees. That is significant. I am sure there are many others, good people working there. It is the leadership that I question.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:30 pm**

Neil no offense intended, my point was you shot lots of birds and unless most of them were shot before 1985 you probably were using steel.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:47 pm**

Mountaineer wrote:
Sorry, the OP's woodcock and grouse do not require the "killing power" of a duck, goose or even, wild pheasant.
Choose the load correctly, point correctly, trigger correctly and go pick up the dead woodcock. :roll:
Yes, birdhunters are required to make decisions.....that would appear obvious, even to one mired in a blinding hatred for little metal spheres.

The OP asked about steel, I had given some examples that were supported on what I shoot with other game with steel. I hunt grouse and woodcock too. If I had wanted to shoot steel for grouse hunting, I would have followed the same logic that I suggested:

#7 in lead is #5 in steel. The same size of each substance will not have the same kinetic energy, it is fact. Someone mentioned #7 steel? A #7 steel pellet will weigh close to same of that of a #9 lead pellet. Conversely, in order to create the same down range effectiveness of a steel pellet, it has to travel slightly more than that of lead. The values are slight, especially at closer distances than that of forty yards. Choke choice is more critical next, and so the OP is aware, using a more open choke than what you would use for lead would be advisable. For example, lead shot through an IC choke will have a higher probability to be more open than that of steel.

I do not hate people using smaller pellets, I dislike people who use smaller pellets on birds without thinking about anything else. They think throwing more pellets will give them a better chance of downing a bird without thinking about the effects to pellet size, velocity it travels etc. From my experience, I see this choice made too often and have to throw halves of birds away because they are "green breasted" from the previous person's choice to mask their inability to be a good shot. I apologize if you could not understand what I am trying to get at, which was to be more informative than saying " it sucks" or have banter back and forth about who did what to cause what. I apologize if you couldn't understand this.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:33 pm**

millerms06 wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Sorry, the OP's woodcock and grouse do not require the "killing power" of a duck, goose or even, wild pheasant.
Choose the load correctly, point correctly, trigger correctly and go pick up the dead woodcock. :roll:
Yes, birdhunters are required to make decisions.....that would appear obvious, even to one mired in a blinding hatred for little metal spheres.

The OP asked about steel, I had given some examples that were supported on what I shoot with other game with steel. I hunt grouse and woodcock too. If I had wanted to shoot steel for grouse hunting, I would have followed the same logic that I suggested:

#7 in lead is #5 in steel. The same size of each substance will not have the same kinetic energy, it is fact. Someone mentioned #7 steel? A #7 steel pellet will weigh close to same of that of a #9 lead pellet. Conversely, in order to create the same down range effectiveness of a steel pellet, it has to travel slightly more than that of lead. The values are slight, especially at closer distances than that of forty yards. Choke choice is more critical next, and so the OP is aware, using a more open choke than what you would use for lead would be advisable. For example, lead shot through an IC choke will have a higher probability to be more open than that of steel.

I do not hate people using smaller pellets, I dislike people who use smaller pellets on birds without thinking about anything else. They think throwing more pellets will give them a better chance of downing a bird without thinking about the effects to pellet size, velocity it travels etc. From my experience, I see this choice made too often and have to throw halves of birds away because they are "green breasted" from the previous person's choice to mask their inability to be a good shot. I apologize if you could not understand what I am trying to get at, which was to be more informative than saying " it sucks" or have banter back and forth about who did what to cause what. I apologize if you couldn't understand this.

That quote of mine was not in reference to any comment by you....still, it stands as fine, just fine.
Yes, it followed your post but the quote I highlighted in that post was made by Neil

.
Your last two sentences display a pretty poor attitude along with the mistake you made in assuming I was responding to you.
As it is, I did not reread your post...I see little reason to do so.
Chill...you're too birdy.

As noted, I used steel 7s...knowing they roughly equated to 9s.
For woodcock...no issue, as few woodcock will be shot at a distance that would prove the oomph of 9s less than advisable.
Grouse, yes...7s worked ok but, if necessary, I would likely prefer 6s...and then be prudent.
As I said, I think ruffed grouse deserve better than steel shot.

I think that most of us understand the problems with steel, even the better steel of today... issues ranging from speed, energy, chokes, et al....so, few of us use it unless a mandate exists.
Always nice though to see it all the same information repeated, yet again.
I will say that having patterned Ts and BBBs in the late 80s, I came to prefer a constriction of 25 thou.
The old 'two chokes more open' idea so widely touted likely began from a fear of barrel damage rather than pattern effectiveness....I think a lot of early steel complaints were from using too open of chokes...and lifting the head off the gunstock, of course.
Another interesting discovery...1 1/4 and 1 3/8 steel loads had an identical pellet count for the same size shot when I cut the shells open. I would say that there was a manufacturing learning curve that did not do steel's reputation any good as well.

I've never found shot in a ruffed grouse from an earlier shot...I expect that waterfowl hunters do given the conditions and the fusillades.
People do love to talk ducks and geese it seems whenever steel is mentioned.

Oh, I do agree-ish on larger shot....turkeys to pheasants....6s has been a favorite for ruffed grouse for nearly 50 years though not much of a reasonable size and volume does not work.
Not a fan of 8 1/2s or 9s or even 8s given druthers but I felt I could try the steel 7s knowing the limitations.
And, they worked.....again, ok.
Another time, I might try a bit larger pellet...just to see.

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:35 pm**

This is becoming nonsensical, and after this I am done.

There are no steel loads that will kill as cleanly as lead. As you move up in steel shot you lose payload, it is how we got 3 and 1/2" shells.

So to answer the OP's question there are no steel loads for grouse and woodcock that will perform as well as lead or the other non- toxic loads.

If you cannot afford the other non-toxic loads, then you really don't care about the reason for not using lead. If you did care, you would sacrifice.

I am done,

Neil

Posted: **Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:56 pm**

Neil wrote:...So to answer the OP's question there are no steel loads for grouse and woodcock that will perform as well as lead or the other non- toxic loads....

I agree but for the little bogsucker especially, there are steel loads that will work just fine even with a bit lower oomph.....if one can shoot.
At distances that woodcock are often shot...not much does not work if all else is according to Hoyle.
Suggesting otherwise speaks of eating too many apples and oranges.

10s used to be a popular woodcock load....RST still sells them tho what the appeal is I do not know.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:33 pm**

I don't like steel as well as lead or Hevi-Shot, but it doesn't deserve the bad rap a lot of you are giving it. I use it for all waterfowl and foe pheasant is SD and for the RANGES I SHOOT AT, I'm more than satisfied with it. I just got back from a snow goose hunt in Sask. and we only crippled one goose and lost none. Equal results in SD last fall with Pheasant and Hiuns.
It is NOT as efficient as lead, but a killer it is.

I'd stick my neck out and say that guys that don't like it are lousy shots or are shooting at ranges ill suited to it. Don't know why anyone would want to use it on grouse and woodcock, but recognize when you do, you won,t have as many pellets but then again your shots at grouse and woodcock are very close.

Sure, I'd be one happy camper if I could still use lead for waterfowl and SD pheasant, but I can't and probably never will be able to. So, I simply shoot at ranges under forty yards and live with it. I really think though that all of the animosity directed at steel is very ill conceived. IMO.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:42 pm**

Neil wrote:The US Fish and Wildlife has nothing to do with the non-toxic shot requirement? Are you rewriting history? They rigged some phoney studies, held some hearings where they did not listen to hunter input, and published the new rules, resulting in a lot of wounded birds.

I don't know why I bother posting in lead shot threads, since most people honestly have their heads up their "bleep" and don't want to learn, but there are no "rigged, phoney studies". If you want to really be informed on the subject, you can do a little reading on the subject from primary literature:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 3&as_sdtp=

Lead shot poisons birds, its irrefutable if you actually do your research. You wouldn't get 50+ years of journal published peer reviewed research from several countries all agreeing if it was fake. The way the lead ban was implemented makes no sense, but the science is sound. There is a difference between science and policy, and the former usually is better than the latter.

I used to think that steel shot was a crippler, and then I spent time shooting clays and realized i was shooting them in the butt. My main concern with steel and grouse hunting is that at >20 yards it would probably still pattern too tight even with no choke, and make grouseburger.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:34 pm**

"I used to think that steel shot was a crippler, and then I spent time shooting clays and realized i was shooting them in the butt. My main concern with steel and grouse hunting is that at >20 yards it would probably still pattern too tight even with no choke, and make grouseburger."

Excellent point. You'd have to develop a choke more open than cylinder.

Posted: **Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:56 pm**

Have killed many wild pheasant with 7/8os and 1oz #4 steel reloads, for smaller birds and teal I use #6. With a properly placed shot steel will cleanly kill any bird within 40 yards.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:05 am**

OK. Here goes.

Within range steel will kill, but so will a handfull of rocks, if thrown by the right person. With the average, casual hunter they wound more than they kill. They lack the skil to extimate range and have poor shot placement.

As to the pseudo scientific studies on lead, they mostly proved lead is bad when ingested. I am not as impressed with peer review, they really are preaching to the choir, often having studied under tha same people with the same text books. How could you expect a different outcome?. No Federal funding has ever been available to prove anything is not harmful to the environment, because most all man does, in excess, is hafmful.

The studies either force fed lead to captive ducks or recovered waterfowl (and eagles) from heavily hunted and fished areas to extrapolate for the rest of the country. Their latest study proclaims non-toxic shot has saved just over 1% of the waterfowl.

Read the studies. There was never a question that lead was bad, the question should have been was steel a better alternative? I have no doubt that steel has been more harmful to the population than lead. They should have mandated the non-toxic shot that was equal to lead in weight to only thos extremely hunted areas.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:50 am**

That is a great post Neil and my thought exactly. Only problem with the equivalent shot is the price. I just looked at Hevi Shot at Cabelas to the tune of $4.40 per shell. Too steep for me.

I always questioned how much shot was EVER ingested by waterfowl. Most waterfowl ponds are muck bottoms and the shot is absorbed into the mud quickly. I have never believed that waterfowl ever absorbed enough lead shot to matter.

What happens when you copper plate shot? Is the copper as harmful as the lead? The way a duck and goose craps, seems like it would pass from their systems before any harm was done.

I think Steel is more deadly on waterfowl that upland because you have your decoys to judge correct distance. Any bird inside the decoys dies. Uplands are different. I'm sure a lot of pheasant are crippled from steel and hunters without pointing dogs.

Posted: **Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:27 am**

jeff gruennert wrote:So I've made the decision to switch to all steel for my upland hunting. What is everybody having success with we're are you buying your shot and what chokes do you like .

I've shot enough pheasants and ducks with steel to know that if you are shooting in timber there is little worry you should have about switching to steel. Use 5s or 6s and very open chokes, steel does pattern tighter then lead. I actually prefer steel 6s for my dove hunting now.

I know guys who stone ducks and geese inside 30 yards with steel 7s. No woodcock is tougher then a 12lb honk.
btw They do not shoot beyond 35 yards and don't need to with the area they hunt... and they are good shots.

Tim

Posted: **Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:11 pm**

I hunt with blackcloud 3 in 4 shot. I hunt pheasant, quail, grouse, ducks, and geese all with the same round. I tried switching to lead last year when we went east where we could use it, and I missed 9 times out of 10. I run IC and IM chokes in my over under, and IC in my semi. I shoot the same rounds out of my 20 guage, and have always had good luck not crippling many birds. Like a few guys on here have pointed out, you need to up your shot size to make up for the lack of weight per pellet. Also, going from a 3 in will up your load if you are shooting a 2.75.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 am**

Neil wrote:OK. Here goes.

Again?...I thought done meant done....

Ruffed grouse...Woodcock...the OP's concern.
Range estimation seldom being an actual issue with those birds over the largest portion of the season.
There are several good books available regarding each bird and their hunting....a library card is a good thing.

I think that hunters(us all) should strive to learn to judge range and shoot...better.
Just as hunters(some) should not extrapolate anecdotal, bad or good, duck shooting results to woodcock shooting attempts simply to pimp an agenda.....lot of folks need to buckle down and work a bit harder.

"Studies" rarely are unbiased.....seldom have been.
Again...because of agendas and often, funding.
Too many look on studies as God's Word, if they can find a shred of spun support for their personal...whatever.

Lead worry in the uplands rates well behind lightning strikes and badger holes.....lead shot deposited in concentrated areas from hunting, or shooting as at Lordship, can not duck a blow quite as easily.
Pick a shot then practice, adjust within your shot and your shooting's abilities and whine less.
I don't hold out much hope for the latter.

Posted: **Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:15 pm**

deke wrote:I hunt with blackcloud 3 in 4 shot. I hunt pheasant, quail, grouse, ducks, and geese all with the same round. I tried switching to lead last year when we went east where we could use it, and I missed 9 times out of 10. I run IC and IM chokes in my over under, and IC in my semi. I shoot the same rounds out of my 20 guage, and have always had good luck not crippling many birds. Like a few guys on here have pointed out, you need to up your shot size to make up for the lack of weight per pellet. Also, going from a 3 in will up your load if you are shooting a 2.75.

Seriously? 3" #4s for quail?

Posted: **Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:01 am**

displaced_texan wrote:
deke wrote:I hunt with blackcloud 3 in 4 shot. I hunt pheasant, quail, grouse, ducks, and geese all with the same round. I tried switching to lead last year when we went east where we could use it, and I missed 9 times out of 10. I run IC and IM chokes in my over under, and IC in my semi. I shoot the same rounds out of my 20 guage, and have always had good luck not crippling many birds. Like a few guys on here have pointed out, you need to up your shot size to make up for the lack of weight per pellet. Also, going from a 3 in will up your load if you are shooting a 2.75.
Seriously? 3" #4s for quail?

Where we hunt we don't know if it is going to be pheasant or quail that flushes. I would rather have a little to much for quail, then not enough for pheasant.

Posted: **Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:55 pm**

Pattern the round - I was surprised to find a large difference in mine. My "go-to" loads were only putting ~15 pellets/8" circle. The shot I use now puts 40+.

3", 1/14 oz, steel #4 for early sharp-tailed grouse.
3", 1/14 oz, steel #3 and #2 for pheasant and late grouse

I've also switched to steel for all but my nostalgic guns. It makes determining leads more consistent and has the added benefit of being non-toxic to all critters (raptors specifically).

Posted: **Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:33 pm**

Thanks for answering my question Deke

Posted: **Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:45 pm**

brewer wrote: and has the added benefit of being non-toxic to all critters (raptors specifically).

I assume y'all have FAR fewer raptors than we do... I wish we could shoot them here.

Gun Dog Forum

Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock

Re: Steel loads for grouse and woodcock