Author |
Message |
< 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ Pellet energy required to kill pheasants. |
|
Posted:
Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:27 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1851
Location: Central ND
|
|
I have all kinds of charts and a program that define what the pellet energy is of a multitude of pellet sizes and types at different 3' velocities.
What I don't have is an article that defines what energy it takes to kill a pheasant.
I am looking for a fact filled piece of reference material.
Not looking for opinions, loads, chokes etc.
I have seen Tom Rosters charts, but those are based on what the average pellet size that was most lethal among a group of hunters. There are no definitive energy numbers involved.
I have seen some ballistic gelatin charts, but again they only show what happened in the test, but do not define what the energy needs to be to kill a pheasant reliably. |
_________________ Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:23 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Posts: 2127
Location: Hudson,Wy
|
|
I do recall seeing an article, possibly two, back in the 90's, but have no recollection of author or title. To be honest, my impression of numerical energy claims/ formulas fall far short of the dynamics of projectile lethality for a number of reasons, beyond my own personal daily evaluations of real world field experience.
Fortunately, pellets are not as complex as bullets, since they already posses ideal form for delivering destructive energies. However, deformed shot does behave differently upon penetration than shot that has remained spherical, necessitating more energy (than round shot) to accomplish the same tasks of penetration and trauma delivery. How much however, has yet to be quantified, as far as I am aware.
Also, as cross section of pellet increases, so does the the amount of force required for equal penetration. In other words, the amount of energy required to kill a pheasant will actually increase as pellet size increases (also consider pellet density vs. cross section for different shot materials). Of course, bigger shot carries more energy, all else being equal.
Another thought on simplistic kinetic energy values, commonly expressed in lb/ft., is that a shotgun should never be able to kill anything when compared to available energies of rifle bullets/ cartridges. Consider an animal such as a coyote, even when based on pellet energy vs. energy of a standard .22 lr round. A .22 lr is a miserably poor performer on coyotes compared to size T steel shot. I killed a great many coyotes once upon a time using 10 ga. loads of T steel (it was my top performer). Shots ranged 35-65 yards, 45-50 being average. At these same distances, the times I tried a .22 lr generally left me without harvested fur, even though its round nose 29 gr. or 40 gr. lead bullet carries tremendously more lb/ft. Projectile cross section is very similar and muzzle velocities relatively similar. Retained velocity of the bullet is higher. Yet my 10 ga. made me a lot of fur money and the rimfire did not.
For that matter, I have killed coyotes with #5 lead while pheasant hunting, albeit at ranges of 20-30 yards. Considering a coyote's reputation for being a tough customer (generally well earned), it begs the question why the same load can't reliably kill roosters at 70, pheasants being less than 10% of the coyotes mass and size.
Back to the original query. The best I can recall off the top of my head for a published scientific study involved mallards at Remington's Nilo Farms. A brief summary is in Bob Brister's "Shotgunning: The Art and the Science". Lead shot was used for the tests. Lethality percentages are given for various loads/ shot sizes broken down into shooting error categories (centered, off by .25%, .50%, etc.) Perhaps they followed up later with pheasants? Good luck in your search. |
_________________ Only catch snowflakes on your tongue AFTER the birds fly south for the winter... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:49 am
|
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1851
Location: Central ND
|
|
Thanks Wyochukar, That gives me a place to start. |
_________________ Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:43 am
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 254
Location: North Shore of Boston
|
|
What I have to contribute may or may not be useful -
Many years ago, more like decades ago, Remington Arms published pellet effectivity from tests run at their Milo Farm facility - which I think was principally a waterfowl area.
What I distinctly remember reading was the author stating that #6 pellets maximum effective range was 38 yards, #4 about 45 around yards and #2 around 52 yards.
Now I think this pertained to ducks, which I presume have tougher plumage to plow through than pheasant.
I'll have to look that up if I can, but at least you have some sort of starting point. |
_________________ Bill K
North of Boston
Browning New A5 Sweet Sixteen circa 2019
Browning Citori Upland 16 GA circa 2014
Darne R10 1962
Browning Sweet Sixteen 16 GA circa 1957
Savage Fox Sterlingworth 16 GA circa 1934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:43 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
Bill K wrote: |
What I have to contribute may or may not be useful -
Many years ago, more like decades ago, Remington Arms published pellet effectivity from tests run at their Milo Farm facility - which I think was principally a waterfowl area.
What I distinctly remember reading was the author stating that #6 pellets maximum effective range was 38 yards, #4 about 45 around yards and #2 around 52 yards.
Now I think this pertained to ducks, which I presume have tougher plumage to plow through than pheasant.
I'll have to look that up if I can, but at least you have some sort of starting point.
|
Bill,
The tests you are referring to were done by Winchester at Nilo (John Olin's last name spelled backwards) Farms in the 70's. They rigged up a trolley which they put ducks in to shoot them for testing. They shot about 1700 ducks before they were finished.
I have read many times over the years where it was stated that their results on ducks are probably a bit more than what is needed for pheasants but since body sizes are close it can make a good starting point.
I am sure the test results can be found easily with a web search. |
_________________ Dennis
Current 16ga. Stable
Browning Citori Gr I
Browning Belgium Sweet 16
A.H. Fox Sterlingworth
Remington 11-48
Remington 31
Remington 870
Geco/J.P. Sauer BLNE
Winchester Mod 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:12 am
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Jan 2019
Posts: 49
Location: Indiana
|
|
Read Michael McIntosh's "shotguns and shooting", specifically the chapter on pheasants.
He talks about pellet energy of a #6 vs. 7 1/2 and why 6's are better.
Bob Brister goes into detail about pellets and QUALITY of pellets in his book, too. |
_________________ German Guild o/u
Remington 1148 X 2
Ithaca 37 Fthrlt X 2 & Upland
LC Smith Field
Winchester 1200
Fox Sterlingworth
AYA
Parker Trojan
Model 12 X 2
I'd rather be using one of them right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:16 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 119
Location: Illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:20 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1851
Location: Central ND
|
|
Thank you all.
Please keep the info coming. I am very interested. |
_________________ Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:24 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 601
Location: Virginia
|
|
Pertaining to the above post that .22 rimfire bullets do poorly on coyotes, I have to disagree a bit. Placement trumps almost everything else when it comes to killing. When coyotes began moving into Indiana in the 1970s, my uncle and I killed a couple dozen with .22 LR bullets, one shot each and never a loss. We took lung shots. I suspect the shotgun works because multiple pellets ensure multiple hits, and some of those hits are bound to be lethal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:27 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Posts: 3184
Location: NCWa
|
|
I don't know if the tests consider pellet placement but it seems to me that more energy is required if the route to the birds vitals is through a lot of feathers and non-vital tissue. one pellet to the base of the neck, one pushing through tail feathers and intestines up to the heart- both will be fatal but each has significantly different energy requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:40 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 254
Location: North Shore of Boston
|
|
Thanks Square Load -
Boy I had my recollections spun around, thankfully I blurted out enough that you were able to recognize what I was eluding to.
I remember that study in-part convinced me to use 4’s for pheasant and ducks. |
_________________ Bill K
North of Boston
Browning New A5 Sweet Sixteen circa 2019
Browning Citori Upland 16 GA circa 2014
Darne R10 1962
Browning Sweet Sixteen 16 GA circa 1957
Savage Fox Sterlingworth 16 GA circa 1934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:11 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 828
|
|
I remember reading an article in sports afield back in early 80's about a study on shot with ducks . The article concluded that it wasn't as much about the size of shot but the amount of shot. Said they had more kills with 6 shot than 4's. Reason concluded that the more shot that hit the duck even thought their wasn't as much penetration but the larger amount of shot threw the duck into shock. I started using that theory and my kills went way up. Just my preseptive. Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:40 am
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Montana
|
|
For whatever it's worth, there is a discussion about shot size in the book "Modern Pheasant Hunting" by Steve Grooms. To summarize, he talks about needing a minimum of three pellet hits and minimum pellet energy of 1.75 foot-pounds required to cleanly kill a bird the size of a pheasant. Not sure how he qualifies this data. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:29 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 1740
Location: Central Missouri
|
|
:::: |
Last edited by Charles Hammack on Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:51 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:29 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 372
Location: mpls mn
|
|
I assume you're talking lead and not some tungsten super shot. I would love some data on a #9 lead pheasant load as I have lots of 9s but very little 5&6s to reload with.
4/10s of a lbs doesn't seem to be enough energy to penetrate the skin let alone break bones or penetrate vital organs. Also seems like game would be peppered with shot I'm not very keen on getting shot in my food while I'm chewing. Unless you have the skill set to use the fringe of the pattern to just hit them in the head. I'm not that good not even shooting pointed birds at 25 yards
Interesting all the published data is about ducks I guess there's no reason to publish data about shooting pheasants when you can kill them with 9 shot |
Last edited by robp on Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|