I have been doing some more waterfowling this year. I have been satisfied that the discussion of whether or not, steel shot is the law of the land. I have no complaint from a conservation standard. I will say that I am still seeing a lot of cripples with it. It's a lot better now than years ago. But I sat in the marsh and saw at least 3 cripples in admittedly few chances. About 6 birds in about 5 flocks. We are seeing a lot of geese, specklebellies, canandas, but our season is not yet open. Ducks are north of us currently, we have gw teal, pintails, gadwalls, wigeons, very few mallards. I am worried that we see this much crippling on small ducks, wonder what if the safety of steel, is outweighed by the effectiveness of lead. I predict 20% unrecoveralable loss. I think that is not unheard of. If those would be saved, and go north, it would have an effect on the reproduction cycle. Would that off set the lead loss from poisioning?. I have tried steel, been unsatisfied, I am back to using "nice shot", and tungsten-matrix by Kent, I have stashed away. It's still not copper or nickle -plated lead, but better. But it's around $3.00 a shot! You guys see this issue?
steel shot are we where we need to be?
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
BrowningCitori
Member
I haven't seen the data in a few years but the last time I saw Tom Roster's data, the number of shells per duck and goose killed was very similar for lead and steel. I don't think any difference in crippling was observed but don't qoute me on that. I will try to find a link to that data.
I was in a Canada a few weeks ago and saw a lot of ducks and geese killed with steel shot (12 and 20 gauge). Some cripples but not any more than I would have expected with lead. Just my observations.
I was in a Canada a few weeks ago and saw a lot of ducks and geese killed with steel shot (12 and 20 gauge). Some cripples but not any more than I would have expected with lead. Just my observations.
BrowningCitori
Member
Losses due to crippling
As early as 1978 Roster (1978b:26) argued the case for steel shot: "Although steel shot can bag ducks as well as lead shot can, the belief persists that steel shot will cripple more waterfowl and damage shotguns. This belief stems from ignorance of the results of tests to investigate gunbarrel damage as well as from ignorance of the ballistic properties of steel shot. Ballistically, steel shot can be loaded to perform as well as lead shot in bagging waterfowl out to seventy yards. Steel shot retains its shape better than lead shot does, and compensations can be made for its lighter weight, enabling it to retain energy as well as lead shot." Nevertheless, waterfowl hunters continue to voice objections to steel shot. A primary objection is based on the belief that a greater number of ducks are crippled (mortally wounded and unretrieved) by steel shot than are poisoned and crippled by lead shot (National Wildlife Federation 1985b). In an Ohio survey, 45 percent of the hunters cited this reason for their opposition to steel shot (Smith and Townsend 1981). In Colorado, hunters of Canada geese feared that crippling losses would increase if steel shot were used (Szymczak 1978). Waterfowl hunters in California also identified crippling as their principal objection to steel shot (Leach 1980).
No single uncontroversial way to present data on the crippling of waterfowl has been devised. Methods commonly used include birds lost per shot fired, per bird bagged, per hunter party per day, per blind per day, and per man-day of hunting. Birds lost per bird bagged would be an appropriate method if all hunters obtained their bag limit each trip, a condition that is rarely the case. Hebert et al. (1984:395) did not analyze cripples per bird bagged in their Louisiana study because of instances in which ducks were crippled but none was bagged. The remaining three methods have reasonably uniform bases; however, the number of hunters per party, the number of hunters per blind, and the hours hunted per man-day are all subject to variation. We chose a method based on birds lost per 100 shots fired because data from all field tests that have been conducted could be handled in that fashion. We also would have presented crippling losses as birds lost per hunting party per day, per blind per day (blind-day), per man- day of hunting, or other expressions of hunting effort if these figures could have been calculated for all studies cited in Table 8; this was not the case. The only calculations possible for all five studies were birds lost per shot fired and birds lost per bird bagged; we chose the former method for the reasons cited above.
The results of several intensive field-shooting experiments that compare the effectiveness of lead and steel loads are shown in Table 8. These data indicate crippling losses in ducks and geese under actual shooting conditions in the field. No statistically significant differences were found among the three duck studies in cripples (birds lost) per shot fired for steel and lead shot. The smallest differences between lead and steel loads occurred in Missouri (Humburg et al. 1982) and in Michigan (Mikula et al. 1977), and the greatest difference was found in Louisiana (Hebert et al. 1984).
Viewing these crippling losses within the context of the national bag of ducks and recent crippling losses, however, provides a broader perspective. The national bag and crippling losses of ducks (data based largely on the use of lead shot) has averaged 12,810,600 ducks bagged per year and 2,729,000 ducks crippled (21.3 percent of the bag) for 1974-1983 (compiled from Carney et al. 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984; Schroeder et al. 1975; Sorensen et al. 1977). We can use these figures to estimate the magnitude of change that might be expected if steel shot were used for hunting ducks. Our estimates are based on the assumption that hunters will fire the same number of steel shot shells as they have of lead, an assumption that may not be valid because Anderson (1979) found that hunters fired more steel than lead shot shells. In addition, data in Table 8 suggest that hunters will bag fewer ducks with steel shot if the same number of shots are fired. In spite of these limitations, the data in Table 8 suggest that little or no difference between crippling losses with steel and lead shot would be found nationwide.
Based upon the data reported in the three duck shooting studies, the largest decrease in crippling losses that might be anticipated if steel shot were used is 5.3 percent (comparison of No. 4 lead with No. 4 steel in Michigan, Table 8). Data from the Missouri study comparing No. 4 steel with No. 4 lead loads suggest than an increase of crippled ducks (7.3 percent) would occur with steel. The largest increase in crippling losses from steel was found in the Louisiana study - 14.3 percent.
Full Text at:
http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/toxicosi.htm
As early as 1978 Roster (1978b:26) argued the case for steel shot: "Although steel shot can bag ducks as well as lead shot can, the belief persists that steel shot will cripple more waterfowl and damage shotguns. This belief stems from ignorance of the results of tests to investigate gunbarrel damage as well as from ignorance of the ballistic properties of steel shot. Ballistically, steel shot can be loaded to perform as well as lead shot in bagging waterfowl out to seventy yards. Steel shot retains its shape better than lead shot does, and compensations can be made for its lighter weight, enabling it to retain energy as well as lead shot." Nevertheless, waterfowl hunters continue to voice objections to steel shot. A primary objection is based on the belief that a greater number of ducks are crippled (mortally wounded and unretrieved) by steel shot than are poisoned and crippled by lead shot (National Wildlife Federation 1985b). In an Ohio survey, 45 percent of the hunters cited this reason for their opposition to steel shot (Smith and Townsend 1981). In Colorado, hunters of Canada geese feared that crippling losses would increase if steel shot were used (Szymczak 1978). Waterfowl hunters in California also identified crippling as their principal objection to steel shot (Leach 1980).
No single uncontroversial way to present data on the crippling of waterfowl has been devised. Methods commonly used include birds lost per shot fired, per bird bagged, per hunter party per day, per blind per day, and per man-day of hunting. Birds lost per bird bagged would be an appropriate method if all hunters obtained their bag limit each trip, a condition that is rarely the case. Hebert et al. (1984:395) did not analyze cripples per bird bagged in their Louisiana study because of instances in which ducks were crippled but none was bagged. The remaining three methods have reasonably uniform bases; however, the number of hunters per party, the number of hunters per blind, and the hours hunted per man-day are all subject to variation. We chose a method based on birds lost per 100 shots fired because data from all field tests that have been conducted could be handled in that fashion. We also would have presented crippling losses as birds lost per hunting party per day, per blind per day (blind-day), per man- day of hunting, or other expressions of hunting effort if these figures could have been calculated for all studies cited in Table 8; this was not the case. The only calculations possible for all five studies were birds lost per shot fired and birds lost per bird bagged; we chose the former method for the reasons cited above.
The results of several intensive field-shooting experiments that compare the effectiveness of lead and steel loads are shown in Table 8. These data indicate crippling losses in ducks and geese under actual shooting conditions in the field. No statistically significant differences were found among the three duck studies in cripples (birds lost) per shot fired for steel and lead shot. The smallest differences between lead and steel loads occurred in Missouri (Humburg et al. 1982) and in Michigan (Mikula et al. 1977), and the greatest difference was found in Louisiana (Hebert et al. 1984).
Viewing these crippling losses within the context of the national bag of ducks and recent crippling losses, however, provides a broader perspective. The national bag and crippling losses of ducks (data based largely on the use of lead shot) has averaged 12,810,600 ducks bagged per year and 2,729,000 ducks crippled (21.3 percent of the bag) for 1974-1983 (compiled from Carney et al. 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984; Schroeder et al. 1975; Sorensen et al. 1977). We can use these figures to estimate the magnitude of change that might be expected if steel shot were used for hunting ducks. Our estimates are based on the assumption that hunters will fire the same number of steel shot shells as they have of lead, an assumption that may not be valid because Anderson (1979) found that hunters fired more steel than lead shot shells. In addition, data in Table 8 suggest that hunters will bag fewer ducks with steel shot if the same number of shots are fired. In spite of these limitations, the data in Table 8 suggest that little or no difference between crippling losses with steel and lead shot would be found nationwide.
Based upon the data reported in the three duck shooting studies, the largest decrease in crippling losses that might be anticipated if steel shot were used is 5.3 percent (comparison of No. 4 lead with No. 4 steel in Michigan, Table 8). Data from the Missouri study comparing No. 4 steel with No. 4 lead loads suggest than an increase of crippled ducks (7.3 percent) would occur with steel. The largest increase in crippling losses from steel was found in the Louisiana study - 14.3 percent.
Full Text at:
http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/toxicosi.htm
BrowningCitori
Member
I tried this load and it didn't work for me (lots of cripples), I understand it is the choice for many. I am shooting 1 1/8 at 1400 in 2 3/4", not for everyone but works for me. It patterns well in my gun and works on pheasants and huns/sharptails.
I agree non-tox is here to stay and that is fine with me.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
I don't see it , I'm satisfied with steel. IMO a 20% loss, cripple rate with steel would equate to 7,8,10% lead. And I don't believe the duck percentages are that high, geese probably. If not higher.
What is the average birds per hunter per day? 2, 21/2, 3 ? Even at 25% a bird left in the marsh will never equal birds under the limit.
What is the average birds per hunter per day? 2, 21/2, 3 ? Even at 25% a bird left in the marsh will never equal birds under the limit.
When steel first became mandatory here in KS on all public lands in the late 80's and later on all waterfowl hunting private or public, it was new to everyone and nobody researched it.
Guys were shooting the same chokes they used with lead and the same size shot. I did a considerable amount of reading on steel loads when I new it was going to become mandatory. I told my old hunting buddies who were still shooting mod chokes to go improved cylinder or even cylinder in some cases and leave it in the gun all year for every size of shot. The bigger the steel shot the tighter the pattern, the smaller the more open the pattern in that choke.
Since those days steel has come a long way as well as chokes. I feel that now, steel is where it should be and has been for a number of years. Of the utmost importance for waterfowling and shooting steel is patterning your gun to various loads.
I don't mind steel at all. Where I do see kill ratio's low is guys shooting beyond their capabilities, the guns and/or the loads capability. But, again, the same problem would be had with lead as well. Skybusting waterfowl is unethical, expensive, and rude to other hunters trying to decoy their birds.
My rule of thumb is if the birds aren't feet down over the kill hole I won't shoot them. I'm just not that hungry. If every hunter did this you would see the kill ratios at or near 100 percent, doesn't matter what type of shot your shooting.
So, keep those shots within 40yrds, pattern your loads and chokes and let the birds work your blocks and kill them feet down over the hole. Makes for a much more enjoyable hunt and results in less cripples and it's also courteous to other hunters who are trying to do the same.
Remember, it's not a competition between who can shoot more birds, its a competition to see whether or not your spread is realistic to the birds, your hid good and your calling is good. Your trying to trick your quarry into thinking what you have is the real deal.
Even back in the lead days the numbers of cripples unrecovered were high. I relate it all to guys shooting beyond their capability, and sky busting. A canada goose is a big bird, as is a mallard. They appear much closer than they really are. If guys would/could estimate range better we would all be better off as would the birds.
Guys were shooting the same chokes they used with lead and the same size shot. I did a considerable amount of reading on steel loads when I new it was going to become mandatory. I told my old hunting buddies who were still shooting mod chokes to go improved cylinder or even cylinder in some cases and leave it in the gun all year for every size of shot. The bigger the steel shot the tighter the pattern, the smaller the more open the pattern in that choke.
Since those days steel has come a long way as well as chokes. I feel that now, steel is where it should be and has been for a number of years. Of the utmost importance for waterfowling and shooting steel is patterning your gun to various loads.
I don't mind steel at all. Where I do see kill ratio's low is guys shooting beyond their capabilities, the guns and/or the loads capability. But, again, the same problem would be had with lead as well. Skybusting waterfowl is unethical, expensive, and rude to other hunters trying to decoy their birds.
My rule of thumb is if the birds aren't feet down over the kill hole I won't shoot them. I'm just not that hungry. If every hunter did this you would see the kill ratios at or near 100 percent, doesn't matter what type of shot your shooting.
So, keep those shots within 40yrds, pattern your loads and chokes and let the birds work your blocks and kill them feet down over the hole. Makes for a much more enjoyable hunt and results in less cripples and it's also courteous to other hunters who are trying to do the same.
Remember, it's not a competition between who can shoot more birds, its a competition to see whether or not your spread is realistic to the birds, your hid good and your calling is good. Your trying to trick your quarry into thinking what you have is the real deal.
Even back in the lead days the numbers of cripples unrecovered were high. I relate it all to guys shooting beyond their capability, and sky busting. A canada goose is a big bird, as is a mallard. They appear much closer than they really are. If guys would/could estimate range better we would all be better off as would the birds.
Last edited:
BrowningCitori
Member
VERY well said!
what shot size? or are you saying that slower is better because i would try 2s 1400 fps 1 1/4 oz 3in. some of the non tox shot options are more than i want to spend.
BrowningCitori
Member
I tried #2 and #3 at 1500 or 1550, I can't remember, but wasn't happy with either. As a friend likes to say, speed sells and shot kills. Why would I try 3" 2s in 1 1/4 when I am very happy with the load I shot (that is my preferred snow goose load, btw)? I literally killed well over 100 roosters with 6s and since switching to 4s have killed well over 100 with that load, I am not stating this to brag, just a statement on sample size.
I agree with you on the the cost of the other non-tox options, not for me.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
Edited.........
Last edited:
sorry
what i meant was that I was willing to try something different, i didn't see a shot size in your post.
what i meant was that I was willing to try something different, i didn't see a shot size in your post.
mnmthunting
Banned
This past Fall I shot Black Cloud 2 3/4 Federal Premiums in # 3 shot worked well on both Mallards and Roosters. Something like $18 a box.
When only shooting roosters I used heavy load # 4 lead Federals in 2 3/4. about $12 a box. I thought the results of both loads was the same.
When only shooting roosters I used heavy load # 4 lead Federals in 2 3/4. about $12 a box. I thought the results of both loads was the same.
AR Dave
New member
I sure like this forum - especially when I'm trapped in Alaska and won't get home until 5 days after duck season opens.
2 3/4, 6 Shot, Wingmaster HD's. About $16 for a box of 10. Can't wait to try them out shortly, although I might save them for Mallards. Black Cloud was the choice in our blinds last year. Except for me - I bought a case of something from Walmart $10 / box. Hey Jack - I held my own. There is such a diversity with our holes, flooded timber, swamps, sloughs, ponds, flooded fields, a lake, them ducks come in different. Well the ducks are different, some holes (rice pond) are mallard holes, my swamp is a gadwal & wood duck place. Teal holes. Most facinating is a 100 acre flooded field where all kinds come to roost. This one duck, Merganser (I think they said), comes in with Turbo's on. All I hear is the wind through it's wings. What in the world left that smoke trail in front of the blind? Can't wait to hear that again. Got me a Zink call - DVD - coworkers are ready to send me home.
Ducks just started showing in great numbers from the cold front last weekend. Send another - thankyou! :10sign:
2 3/4, 6 Shot, Wingmaster HD's. About $16 for a box of 10. Can't wait to try them out shortly, although I might save them for Mallards. Black Cloud was the choice in our blinds last year. Except for me - I bought a case of something from Walmart $10 / box. Hey Jack - I held my own. There is such a diversity with our holes, flooded timber, swamps, sloughs, ponds, flooded fields, a lake, them ducks come in different. Well the ducks are different, some holes (rice pond) are mallard holes, my swamp is a gadwal & wood duck place. Teal holes. Most facinating is a 100 acre flooded field where all kinds come to roost. This one duck, Merganser (I think they said), comes in with Turbo's on. All I hear is the wind through it's wings. What in the world left that smoke trail in front of the blind? Can't wait to hear that again. Got me a Zink call - DVD - coworkers are ready to send me home.
Ducks just started showing in great numbers from the cold front last weekend. Send another - thankyou! :10sign:
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
......yep....