Copper Shot?

[Bob Peters]

Presently, I use on steel shot for all game. I have no difficulty killing pheasants, ducks, geese, rabbits, squirrels, pigeons, doves, forest and prairie grouse with steel.

For a couple of seasons, I used bismuth. However, I do not find it to be more effective than steel.

I started this thread as I am curious to see if copper is more effective than bismuth or steel and if it is worth the cost. At present, I have doubts.

One thing we know for certain, any shot on the market today is ballistically superior to steel.

The copper deal is brand new, it'll take time for real-user info to come out. It'll be interesting to see if the large ammo makers bring out a copper shell. I'm sure bismuth will be back someday, there's plenty of it in the earth, but no one can predict world politics and the future of mining permits.

 

[Labradinger]

Idk why everyone thinks there isnt any bismuth for sale anymore.

 

[cheesy]

Being significantly less dense than bismuth, copper can't possibly perform equal or better, as Boss claims.

Vincent Gambini might ask the Bossmen, "Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your loading bench!?!"

The Bossmen claim superiority in whichever way the wind happens to be blowing that day, or in their case, whichever shot they're pushing that day. Their social media was trashing steel (understandably) for years........until they came out with their own 'copper washed steel'. And now, steel isn't all that bad, in fact, its pretty cool stuff.....

host images for forum posts

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

The Bossmen claim superiority in whichever way the wind happens to be blowing that day, or in their case, whichever shot they're pushing that day. Their social media was trashing steel (understandably) for years........until they came out with their own 'copper washed steel'. And now, steel isn't all that bad, in fact, its pretty cool stuff.....

They're as guilty of lies, misinformation, & wives' tales as the next ammo manufacturer these days, preying on shooters that just don't understand what they're looking at or what they need. Except....they come right out & say their steel (& all steel, for that matter) is best suited for shots over decoys. Oh sure, you'll kill the occasional bird past 30 yds, but for the most part they admit they're not trying to match long range performance of superior shot materials (as evidenced by only offering #1 & #3 steel). Of the "copper-washed" shot they say, "Copper-plated to demonstrate uncompromising quality regardless of price." It's got no ballistic benefit. It simply sounds like it's better quality & therefore SHOULD cost more. Such a sham. My prediction: copper-over-steel (copper plated of course) duplex loads are in the future.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

I started this thread as I am curious to see if copper is more effective than bismuth or steel and if it is worth the cost. At present, I have doubts.

I think it'll be at least a couple years before there's a significant database of field experience for shooters to offer. Many people on here are a little more knowledgeable than your average shooter, & I can't decide if that makes "us" more or less likely to try copper. Time will tell.

 

[GladHunter]

Presently, I use on steel shot for all game. I have no difficulty killing pheasants, ducks, geese, rabbits, squirrels, pigeons, doves, forest and prairie grouse with steel.

If steel is working for you, then there is no reason to switch. Unless you wanted to spend money unnecessarily. If that's the case, I've got a great deal for you....

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

So it is a step-up from steel.

So for my non-tox needs for pheasants with a 16 ga, steel is not a viable option. I want a shell that'll consistently (that's a key word) kill a rooster (not a straight away shot) out to 50 yds. I've tried enough different things to know that for me, that requires a bare minimum of 150 pellets of #4 bismuth. I've shot a lot of #5 & while they're fine out to 40, they just don't cut it consistently past 40.

With copper density being between steel & bismuth, I suspect the proper copper shot size for me would be #3. (It could even be #2, but I hope not.) Although I haven't seen pellets/ounce charts, the math shows #3 copper should be right about 135, meaning it'd take at least 1-1/8 oz to meet my 150 pellet criteria. Right now Boss is offering 1-1/8 oz loads of #4, but not #3. I've asked if they'll be doing #3, but haven't gotten a response yet. It may not fit in a 16 ga hull. If it turns out #2 copper is the appropriate size, that'll require a 12 ga, because it'd take 1-3/8 oz to get 150. I own plenty of 12's but refuse to hunt pheasants with them.

 

[2point]

In the podcast with Scott Linden, Brandon from boss said something interesting. He said we worked so hard that we made a bismuth load that is better than lead. I was driving and almost had to pull over as I was laughing so hard. It is funny how for years they bashed steel so bad and then came out with the unleaded. He was the one who said no issues on getting cooper approved, when I asked about the USFWS. Seems like he had many issues. All that said I have been using Boss bismuth 4s this year and really like them. I wish I had another case of them. I will be patterning my Winchester bismuth 4s soon, hope to same results.

 

[Bob Peters]

I own plenty of 12's but refuse to hunt pheasants with them.

Can't you do it just one time? It'd make a great video. If you need shell recommendations for the 12, I'm sure Goose knows a good load to try.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

Can't you do it just one time? It'd make a great video. If you need shell recommendations for the 12, I'm sure Goose knows a good load to try.

It'd probably throw Ace off his game. He's 100% a 16 gauge boy. If I did though, maybe I'd use my 12 ga muzzle-loader. Single shot. Cloud of black smoke. Lots of swearing at its ineffectiveness.

 

[Bob Peters]

Or if GoldenHour goes to Florida on vacation maybe you could borrow his gun. I still remember one of his videos it jammed, and I think there was a candy wrapper in it! That was youtube gold right there.

 

[remy3424]

I want a shell that'll consistently (that's a key word) kill a rooster (not a straight away shot) out to 50 yds.

Do you take many 50 yard shots? Half a football field, that sounds like a good poke. If I would take a 50 yarder, it sure wouldn't be my 1st shot! Using my IC tube, not the best option for me. I should shoot my backstop and just see how many pellets I would have in a 30 inch circle at 50....I could get a surprise.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

Do you take many 50 yard shots?

Not very dang many. But if I shoot at one, my shells are going to be sufficient. I do take a good number of 40 yd shots though. And with those, I don't want shells that are just barely enough. I want shells that are very much enough. That's moreso where the 50 yd criteria comes from.

 

[Tomahawker]

I’ll take a long shot out over stubble where I and or the dog have a much better chance of locating a downed bird.

 

[Glock]

It'd probably throw Ace off his game. He's 100% a 16 gauge boy. If I did though, maybe I'd use my 12 ga muzzle-loader. Single shot. Cloud of black smoke. Lots of swearing at its ineffectiveness.

Unless you put that cowbell under the rear tire of your truck and spun the tires so hard it launched that bell into the stratosphere, I don’t know if Ace is up for anymore of those “let’s try this idea” this season.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

Unless you put that cowbell under the rear tire of your truck and spun the tires so hard it launched that bell into the stratosphere, I don’t know if Ace is up for anymore of those “let’s try this idea” this season.

Bah! I'd already forgotten about that. Big ass bell around his neck. I knew neither of us would go for that, but I didn't know he'd be quite so terrified. That's the bell my wife hangs on the door handle & has trained each of our dogs to ring when they want to go outside. It's so annoying, but if I launch it into space, I'll get in big trouble.

 

[John Singer]

So for my non-tox needs for pheasants with a 16 ga, steel is not a viable option. I want a shell that'll consistently (that's a key word) kill a rooster (not a straight away shot) out to 50 yds.

I use a 16 gauge SxS with steel shot for most of my pheasant hunting. I reload and use a Ballistic Products recipe of 7/8 oz #4 in right barrel and #3 in the left. I do try to keep my shots within 35 yards. To this distance, I do not see a ballistic advantage to any other shot type over the performance of steel.

Also, I have difficult time understanding how to get a viable pattern with bismuth shot to 50 yards. What choke are you using to accomplish this?

BTW, isn't the following a quote of yours from another thread on this forum. I agree with you on this.

"In my opinion there isn't a load on the planet that'll consistently anchor a rooster to the ground past about 35 yds."

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

I use a 16 gauge SxS with steel shot for most of my pheasant hunting. I reload and use a Ballistic Products recipe of 7/8 oz #4 in right barrel and #3 in the left. I do try to keep my shots within 35 yards. To this distance, I do not see a ballistic advantage to any other shot type over the performance of steel.

Also, I have difficult time understanding how to get a viable pattern with bismuth shot to 50 yards. What choke are you using to accomplish this?

BTW, isn't the following a quote of yours from another thread on this forum. I agree with you on this.

"In my opinion there isn't a load on the planet that'll consistently anchor a rooster to the ground past about 35 yds."

I shoot full choke. Per my response to another comment in this thread, I take very few 50 yd shots. My 50 yd criteria comes moreso from wanting "great" pellet penetration at 40 yds, not just barely enough, because I take plenty of those (not straight aways). Great penetration at 40 basically bleeds over into "sufficient" penetration at 50 yds, kind of by default. Similarly, when I talk about my 150 pellet rule, that mainly gets me to 40 yds or so, & does tend to thin out at 50. But my shooting ability also comes into play. I'm not nearly as reliable at 50 as I am at 40. But if I don't whiff at 50, I tend to make a good shot, putting enough pellets in the kill zone.

The thing about 35 yds does, in fact, sound like me. Not 100% sure of the context, but I believe I was probably talking about straight away shots.

I obviously enjoy discussing ballistics. I need to remember that when I do, it could be interpreted several different ways, when much of the time I'm mainly talking about achieving pellet penetration, particularly when I discuss different shot sizes & materials.

The ability to put a killing pattern on a bird at some range is so specific to the shooter & his/her particular gun/load/choke combination that I almost don't consider those topics part of "ballistics". In my mind, I tend to apply "ballistics" to ammunition only & the rest to shooting technique & guns/chokes. For right or wrong.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

BTW, isn't the following a quote of yours from another thread on this forum. I agree with you on this.

"In my opinion there isn't a load on the planet that'll consistently anchor a rooster to the ground past about 35 yds."

Wow, I'm surprised nobody called me out on that. But thanks for catching it. I knew it sounded familiar, and I was THINKING about straightaway shots at the time. The thought just didn't make it to the fingers, & my proof reader didn't catch it. Correction made. Thanks again!

 

[John Singer]

I will suggest that most hunters cannot not consistently hit a 50 yard crossing bird with any ammunition.