Which is tougher to bring down... Pheasant or Mallard.
- Thread starter Spence
- Start date
1pheas4
Moderator
knock down, I would say they take the same amount of force/shot. Though I have to say it seems easier to drop a mallard than a pheasant.
Pheasants seem to take a good hit and keep moving. Mallards more than likely would drop from the same shot the pheasant kept moving on.
Determination to survive and get the heck out of there I'd say would be in the pheasant's favor. Cripple a mallard and the dog will more than likely find it. Cripple a pheasant and the dog's probably going to get the run of his life.
Pheasants seem to take a good hit and keep moving. Mallards more than likely would drop from the same shot the pheasant kept moving on.
Determination to survive and get the heck out of there I'd say would be in the pheasant's favor. Cripple a mallard and the dog will more than likely find it. Cripple a pheasant and the dog's probably going to get the run of his life.
knock down, I would say they take the same amount of force/shot. Though I have to say it seems easier to drop a mallard than a pheasant.
Pheasants seem to take a good hit and keep moving. Mallards more than likely would drop from the same shot the pheasant kept moving on.
Determination to survive and get the heck out of there I'd say would be in the pheasant's favor. Cripple a mallard and the dog will more than likely find it. Cripple a pheasant and the dog's probably going to get the run of his life.
+1 those web feet on the duck is not good for running. However a pheasants feet is not good for swimming. Flip a coin.
FCSpringer
Moderator
Mallard. Mallard. Mallard. Would have stopped at Mallard, but too short of a reply .
.
Toad
Active member
same shot angle and same range... MALLARD!!! 2X the feathers, at least 2X the fat, and 2X thickness on the skin. That's a lot of extra material your pellet has to get through before you get to vitals.
Decoying mallards may SEEM easier to kill cleanly than a flushing pheasant because you are shooting right into the vitals. Apples-to-apples though, they are the tougher bird to bring down.
But I would agree with the guys who said that a mallard cripple is probably easier (generally) for a dog than a pheasant cripple. Although I've seen more than one that dove underwater and never came up again. That's a tough retreive...
Decoying mallards may SEEM easier to kill cleanly than a flushing pheasant because you are shooting right into the vitals. Apples-to-apples though, they are the tougher bird to bring down.
But I would agree with the guys who said that a mallard cripple is probably easier (generally) for a dog than a pheasant cripple. Although I've seen more than one that dove underwater and never came up again. That's a tough retreive...
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
Is it the ammo or the bird? I used to shoot wetland pheasants with #4 steel, they took hits like mallards. Big puff of feathers, bird flies away. Switched to high velocity #3's a lot more birds down. Both mallards and pheasants.
1pheas4
Moderator
Lol....this is going to turn into a "my brother can beat up your bother" kind of thing
Okay, what do you think of these points? If you placed a wild pheasant and a Mallard at 40 yards and shot each with a steel shot shell of #2's, I don't believe the Mallard is going to tough it out and survive over the wild pheasant. I say neither one is tougher over the other in this matter.
Yes a mallard's skin and bones are thicker, breast muscles are denser too, but talking about a clean "in range" shot of 40 yards or closer, both taking the same amount of velocity and pellets, they're both dead. The Mallard is not made of armor.
As far as shooting mallards vs. wild pheasants, I can say there's been many times I've been able to decoy mallards, let them land, flush them from the water, shoot three shells, loaded another shell or two into the gun and drop another mallard from the same group. I know a guy who keeps two loaded shot guns in the blind just for this reason; there's time to keep shooting.
I my experience, I can't say the same for shooting at split second flushing wild pheasants.
Also, dropping mallards into cattails, and thick grasses surrounding the pond, the dogs seems to find the crippled mallards within 5 to 10 yards of where they dropped.
Crippled pheasants. They're usually 100 yards away by the time the dogs get on their trail and the guns are reloaded.
I've also killed pheasants (pen birds for taxidermy) by squeezing their ribcage. Lights out! A few minutes later their back on their feet running off like nothing happened.
I couldn't tell you how many wild roosters I've lost in ponds. Don't ask me were or how they escape the water, but they do.
Also, if you really want a new hunter to get his first bird and you have the option of putting him on Mallards or wild roosters would you put him on decoying mallards for the best chance at his "first bird" or wild pheasants? I've always started new hunters on pen birds or ducks, not wild pheasants or ruffed grouse for that matter.
I say a wild pheasant is all-around tougher to bring down and put in the bag! That's my point and I'm sssssttttttiiiiiccckkkin toooooo it!
P.S.--Have you ever seen a Mallard to this? http://youtu.be/bn-STQyFHbs
Okay, what do you think of these points? If you placed a wild pheasant and a Mallard at 40 yards and shot each with a steel shot shell of #2's, I don't believe the Mallard is going to tough it out and survive over the wild pheasant. I say neither one is tougher over the other in this matter.
Yes a mallard's skin and bones are thicker, breast muscles are denser too, but talking about a clean "in range" shot of 40 yards or closer, both taking the same amount of velocity and pellets, they're both dead. The Mallard is not made of armor.
As far as shooting mallards vs. wild pheasants, I can say there's been many times I've been able to decoy mallards, let them land, flush them from the water, shoot three shells, loaded another shell or two into the gun and drop another mallard from the same group. I know a guy who keeps two loaded shot guns in the blind just for this reason; there's time to keep shooting.
I my experience, I can't say the same for shooting at split second flushing wild pheasants.
Also, dropping mallards into cattails, and thick grasses surrounding the pond, the dogs seems to find the crippled mallards within 5 to 10 yards of where they dropped.
Crippled pheasants. They're usually 100 yards away by the time the dogs get on their trail and the guns are reloaded.
I've also killed pheasants (pen birds for taxidermy) by squeezing their ribcage. Lights out! A few minutes later their back on their feet running off like nothing happened.
I couldn't tell you how many wild roosters I've lost in ponds. Don't ask me were or how they escape the water, but they do.
Also, if you really want a new hunter to get his first bird and you have the option of putting him on Mallards or wild roosters would you put him on decoying mallards for the best chance at his "first bird" or wild pheasants? I've always started new hunters on pen birds or ducks, not wild pheasants or ruffed grouse for that matter.
I say a wild pheasant is all-around tougher to bring down and put in the bag! That's my point and I'm sssssttttttiiiiiccckkkin toooooo it!
P.S.--Have you ever seen a Mallard to this? http://youtu.be/bn-STQyFHbs
Last edited:
mnmthunting
Banned
I would just say that a good hit at a good range the results are the same Mallard or rooster. A poor hit or long range shooting the pheasant is harder to put in the bag.
When comparing the two you've got to use the same shot, that would be steel or non-toxic. To me that requires a little closer range and more of a direct hit.
Why I use the full choke. I still like the heavy load lead #4 or #5 on Roosters.
So steel shot on Mallards, lead shot on pheasants, no question the duck is harder to bring down.
When comparing the two you've got to use the same shot, that would be steel or non-toxic. To me that requires a little closer range and more of a direct hit.
Why I use the full choke. I still like the heavy load lead #4 or #5 on Roosters.
So steel shot on Mallards, lead shot on pheasants, no question the duck is harder to bring down.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
I don't think this is a serious argument. A pheasant v. a mallard? I assume we are comparing a green head v. a cock so the answer is simple MALLARD.
I have hunted each for almost 40 years and a green head is by far a tougher kill.
birdshooter
Well-known member
The original question was easier to bring down not find after it is down.
With everything else being equal (shot size, choke etc..) most of this will depend on how the bird was flying when it was shot. What I mean is was the bird flying away from the gun, incoming or crossing and of course distance. Typically waterfowl are shot incoming or crossing exposing a lot of vital areas, whereas pheasants mostly are shot going away exposing less vitals to the shot pattern. A long going away shot at a rooster is going to yield less kills than a decoying mallard presenting a head and breast shot. Shoot an incoming rooster and he's going down just as easy as a mallard.
So.... with that said, IMO neither is more difficult to bring down than the other given the same presentation. But if you were to ask me which has more will to survive when wounded, I would say the rooster Pheasant. They have a will to survive unlike any other bird that I have hunted.
With everything else being equal (shot size, choke etc..) most of this will depend on how the bird was flying when it was shot. What I mean is was the bird flying away from the gun, incoming or crossing and of course distance. Typically waterfowl are shot incoming or crossing exposing a lot of vital areas, whereas pheasants mostly are shot going away exposing less vitals to the shot pattern. A long going away shot at a rooster is going to yield less kills than a decoying mallard presenting a head and breast shot. Shoot an incoming rooster and he's going down just as easy as a mallard.
So.... with that said, IMO neither is more difficult to bring down than the other given the same presentation. But if you were to ask me which has more will to survive when wounded, I would say the rooster Pheasant. They have a will to survive unlike any other bird that I have hunted.
Last edited:
Talk about a surprising thread!
Being I've shot more mallards than pheasants, but have shot a good amount of both, given the same distance, pheasants are barely easier to bring down because of the skin thickness IMO.
Ducks also seem to take a pellet or two to the wing and keep going because they know they need too, but one in a pheasant wing and he'll land on purpose because he knows he can run like hell!
Being I've shot more mallards than pheasants, but have shot a good amount of both, given the same distance, pheasants are barely easier to bring down because of the skin thickness IMO.
Ducks also seem to take a pellet or two to the wing and keep going because they know they need too, but one in a pheasant wing and he'll land on purpose because he knows he can run like hell!
RoosterFetcher
New member
I would have to say mallard just because I'm only use to pheasants...lol!
jeffstally
Member
I think that a mallard is a tougher bird to bring down, but that is based on only shooting steel shot at them.
koja48
New member
Mallards, with more feathers/down are better-protected, but shot opportunities are optimal -- more time to plan, lead, select . . . Pheasants have fewer feathers/protection but are typically flying away or crossing (the bane of most wingshooters). That being said, I have to say Pheasant (plus, Mallards don't startle the hell out of you when they get up . . . read an article years ago entitled: "Why Pheasants are Foozled." "Foozled" is a good way to described the flush experience.).
Last edited:
1pheas4
Moderator
Illinois Department of Natural Resources hunting and trapping regulations 2012, page 45. Tom Roster's 2012 Nontoxic Shot Lethality Table
Large ducks (includes Mallards) at 20-45 yards out, Mallards take 1 to 2 lethal pellet hits to bring down (#6 to #2 shot, 3/4,1, 1-1/8oz)
Ring neck pheasants at 20 to 50 yards out take 2 to 3 lethal pellet hits to bring down (#3 to #2 shot, 1,1-1/8oz)
The wild ring neck pheasant is indeed the tougher bird for all you mallard mallard mallard folks out there
:cheers:--
Last edited:
Any big duck is harder to bring down. When you figure pheasants are mostly shot going away from the gunner and they are fairly easy to kill within about 40 yards. Try to shoot a duck going away from you at 40 yrds. Very hard to kill. And most ducks are shot with the belly facing the gunner and are still difficult to kill at those ranges. Put a pheasant coming at me, wings flared for landing with the vitals exposed shooting number 2 or 4 shot. The pheasant would be destroyed.
Without a doubt a duck is tougher. Mostly due to more feathers, thicker skin etc.
Without a doubt a duck is tougher. Mostly due to more feathers, thicker skin etc.
1pheas4
Moderator
Oh man.
The stats/study shows the wild ring neck pheasant takes more lethal pellets hits to bring down. Larger pellets to bring down him down too. Despite the facts, the duck is still tougher.
P.S.--duck skins tear very easily on a fleshing wheel. Their skin is surprisingly delicate, not tough. The thickness in duck skin comes from a layer of fat between their skin. At 40 yards I'm not sure that or down will do much of anything to help a mallard out.
The stats/study shows the wild ring neck pheasant takes more lethal pellets hits to bring down. Larger pellets to bring down him down too. Despite the facts, the duck is still tougher.
P.S.--duck skins tear very easily on a fleshing wheel.
Their skin is surprisingly delicate, not tough. The thickness in duck skin comes from a layer of fat between their skin. At 40 yards I'm not sure that or down will do much of anything to help a mallard out.