I was a guest of a "continental pheasant shoot" near home yesterday, 125 birds in the morning, lunch, then another 125 in the afternoon. All I had to provide was gun and shells. Not having any 12 ga. loads of shot sizes 6 through 4, I looked into what I did have. Found some 16 ga., 1 1/8 oz. of 4s, and a whole flat of 20 ga., 1 oz. 4s that someone had given me several years ago. So, out came Susie, my L C Smith with 32" inseams. She has very tight chokes, over .040" in each barrel, so I had no doubts that the loads for her would work fine, and they did. You never know how the birds will fly at these things, but these were unexpectedly good. I've only done this four times, and had seen mixed results in the past, but we had many, many birds that were pushing 40 yards high by the time they reached the peg, very strong fliers. The Smith did an admirable job, and took some very high and long birds cleanly. But, I didn't have enough shells for it for the afternoon shoot.

So, I used the 30" barreled Beretta 687 SPII Sporting, 20 ga. Now, I'll admit to having some doubts about 1 oz. of 4s on these high birds, but I guess it's just been too long since I quit shooting lead at ducks and I just didn't remember how effective #4 lead can be. I shot a M choke in the first barrel and a LM in the second (top). It hammered them so well I really could not tell much difference between the the 1 oz. load out of the 20, and the 1 1/8 oz. out of the 16. I don't propose to say that this is a great load for wild phez, having never shot at one in my life, but it was aplenty for these birds, even the big cockbirds. It renewed my faith in large shot, used properly. Some here may recall my fondness for choke, and the combination of plenty choke and the 4s worked really well.

One word of caution if attending a shoot like this, WEAR SHOOTING GLASSES and a billed cap. There will be shooters on the opposite side of you shooting upwards, but in your direction. Yesterday morning a shot came across the field, probably 200 yards, and bounced off my forehead above my left eye. It hit my ol' bony head so hard the other guy on my peg looked around to see what made the noise, and left a red spot where it struck. If it had hit an eye it would have been serious.

SRH

One thing I've learned about shotgunning, is that if you connect the bird and the center of pattern at any reasonable distance - say up to 40 meters - there's precious little difference what shot size, load and choke.

#4 lead can be effective for just about anything. Lots of diehard waterfowl hunters over here use #3 lead for geeze over decoys, and swear if a goose is too far to be killed with #3 reliably, it's too far for any shot size.

And, lest I forget, congratulations with a great hunt!

Same in our province, until non-toxic regulation experienced waterfowl hunters, particularly subsistence hunters and poachers, used only No. 4 lead, and if I had choice of only one size it would be No. 4.

#4 shot kills turkeys like no other...I've shot crows so high with my Scott 10 it would make you think it impossible to knock them down.

Hello Stan:

Years ago, I loaded some 20 gauge shells with 1 once of number 4 shot and found them to be a great load for pheasants over a pointer! I would not hesitate to use them again.


Congrats on you hunt! Well done.

Be well,

Franchi

On an annual late season pheasant hunt to South Dakota, I've always used #5 shot in 1 1/8 oz load in my 16 ga's which has worked well. That is, until our Dec 2014 hunt. I took along my Ithaca 280 E and had some #4 shot in 1 1/4 oz 12 ga loads my brother had given me. Lights out on the birds!

My friend was working the dogs from one end of a shelter belt and I posted up on the other end. The birds were boiling out of the sides and end of the belt. One flew low overheard and being around -15 degrees, I fumbled around getting the safe off. By the time I finally did, I had second thoughts on taking the shot because of the distance, but did anyway. The bird dropped like a sack of spuds....I was impressed!

I had a couple of 16 ga's on this years hunt, but mainly used the Ithaca 280 using the same 1 1/4 oz loads, with the same results as the previous year. #4's used to be my go to load for any manner of duck hunting, but same as you Stan, It had been so long since I used #4, I had forgotten how effective they can be.

Congrats on the fun shoot!

I have a large coffee can filled with reloads of #4 lead 2 3/4" 1 3/8 oz duck loads, all left overs from pre-lead ban. They were deadly on our web-footed friends.

Best part of the story to me was it took you back. At the tail end of when I could use lead on ducks, a hunt I looked forward to was early Teal season. I'd carry an ounce of 7 1/2's for quail, because the pup and I would swing by ponds and jump Greenwings with the same load. No hesitation. Out in the field, it clunked the small ducks, fairly close, at least as well as the early #2 steel I had to use on later season bigger duck over dekes in nontox areas.

An ounce and a quarter of fours was my favorite duck load back in the day. And I shot a lot of ducks.

After a few days in Nebraska hunting pheasant, I put away the 16 shooting an ounce of sixes and brought out the duck gun and my favorite duck loads. Big difference.

craig,

I killed many a woodie with 7 1/2s, even a few "big ducks", as we called them back then. We never had the opportunity to kill many big ducks, so I never used a whole lot of 4s. But, I do remember that they hit like the hammer of Thor. I've been peppered many times with 7 1/2s and 8s on a dove field ............ even shot hard from close enough range that it bloodied me two different times, but that #4 that hit me in the for'ead yesterday was really packing some energy!

There is just no comparison between a #4 lead and a #4 steel shot. I was talking to Phil Robertson a few years ago when he was here for a speaking engagement and we were both bemoaning the loss of lead for ducks. I told him I suspected there were ducks in heaven and that we would be free to use lead. That got a big rise out of him, all said in fun, but with a twinge of hopefulness in our voices.

SRH

Right on about the crows, jOe. Me, too. I was just surprised at how well it did on those big cock pheasants, which weigh three times what a big old crow weighs.

SRH

He he he
I went to college with Phil Robertson and Terry Bradshaw, what fun, what fun.
Yes #4 shot is great for wild pheasants, I use #5 early and #4 later, and when hunting squirrel in Louisiana, I do like #4 for squirrel when hunting in heavy leaf cover.
Mike

4's for squirrel and rabbit both mean less shot to pick (or spit) out when it comes time to eat the critters...Geo

"Hammer of Thor" pretty much says it. I usually go #6 in the right and #4 in the left when hunting pheasants with my 12 ga.

The difference between a "continental" shoot or a driven shoot (which the continental is supposed to replicate, although driven birds are usually better fliers because they've been out and about for weeks or even months by the time they're shot) and our typical walk-up hunting for wild birds over dogs is that most of our shots are at some sort of outgoing angle. Trap really isn't bad practice for wild pheasants, because unless you're a blocker at the end of a field drive, you're going to get mostly trap-like shots. Within 30 yards or so, most of those birds can be taken with 7 1/2's, the main problem being that you end up with a lot of pellets in the meat. 6's will get you to 40 yards. 5's and 4's become necessary if you're going to take many shots farther out than that--although a lot of pheasant hunters aren't good enough shots to make use of the larger shot because it also requires a tighter choke if we're talking 40 yards +, and the tighter choke will handicap them on the closer birds they're more likely to hit. I've killed more with 6's than anything else; quite a few with British 6's or US 7's, some with 7 1/2's, and some with 5's--typically late season when the birds are all full grown, packing fat to protect them from the cold, and shots can be longer. I've never used anything larger than 5's. But I've also done most of my pheasant hunting over good dogs--the best of which, over a span of 6 seasons, recovered 491 birds shot by me and those hunting with us, while losing only 12. Those who are better shots than I am, and maybe don't have dogs with quite the experience, might well make good use of more choke and larger shot than I do.

The Brits, who more or less invented driven shooting, traditionally use what most American pheasant hunters would consider light loads of shot that's on the small side. The standard choice is British 6, which is slightly larger than our 7's (about 6 2/3). It's mostly a 12ga game, but shot charges are usually an ounce or 1 1/16, sometimes 1 1/8. Those loads work quite well on "typical" driven shoots, where a 40 yard bird is a high one, and the average height is almost certainly under 30 yards. That's the game for which the standard British game gun (2 1/2" 12 weighing 6 1/4-6 3/4#) was designed. And it's as effective today as it ever was.

There's a subset of that game for those who prefer much higher birds. That game requires special terrain--hills, trees, and valleys--in order to offer a consistent diet of 50 yard + shots, with plenty of birds higher than that. Those people mostly shoot OU's like those we see at sporting clays shoots: barrels 30-34", weight upwards of 8#, loads in the vicinity of 1 1/2 oz, through tight chokes.

For those who might be tempted to try a driven shoot for the very high birds, I'd recommend experiencing just your standard garden variety first. Those birds can be plenty challenging. Or at least they are for me.

I used some handloaded 1 ounce #4's in a 16 bore with IM/F chokes on wild pheasant this year with good results. I had to be careful about shooting close in birds too soon as the IM choke can really wreck them.I took one long bird at an honest 40 yards. It was not dead when delivered by my spaniel, but it didn't run, either.

Wow Larry, recovering 491 birds and losing only 12 is a pretty good record. What do you think the score would have been if you followed the advice you gave us on 1/26/16 when you said:


"Lead is toxic. Toxic = bad. Why not get rid of as much of it as possible? And we can shoot steel shot, and there are nontoxic substitutes for lead bullets. So we are ALL going to have to deal with the challenge of why shouldn't we switch, rather than defending the status quo by saying why should we. That, unfortunately, is where we're at. And in states where we don't have strong hunter numbers (like California), we might very well find ourselves in the same boat they're in. All we can do is make as much noise as possible, and insist on "good science". But we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we keep trying to fight the battles we've already lost (like waterfowl)."

Thanks for the useful contribution to the discussion, Keith. The first 3 sentences of that quote represent the position of those who think we should switch from lead to nontox for everything. Not my position. I haven't seen evidence of any good reason we SHOULD switch to nontox for upland birds. In fact, one of the points I made in my articles on lead vs nontox is that there have never been any blind studies done comparing the effectiveness of lead to steel on upland birds. (Pheasants would be a good place to start.) Therefore, we don't know whether we might in fact end up with more lost cripples shooting steel in an effort to get rid of lead shot that does not appear to be harming either upland birds or any other species of wildlife. Therefore, I have no idea what the "score" would have been if I'd been shooting steel. I see no reason to do so for upland birds, other than around wetlands where it's more likely to be ingested by waterfowl.

I'd be glad to continue the discussion, Keith--but elsewhere, in a topic devoted to the lead vs nontox issue. Here, it seems to me, we have plenty to discuss just focusing on LEAD shot size for pheasants.

Hello Larry:

Yours is a great post! I would like to add a bit more. How about results based on double blind data and some peer revues. I am sick to death with unqualified statements re. the election year garbage. Let there be studies done to determine the TRUTH regarding lead shot and the environment.

Be well,

Franchi

Larry's too busy bobbing for a turd in his fish bowl....

Tom Roster did a fairly extensive study shooting steel at pheasants. Blind in the sense that the shooters did not know what shot size they were using. (2's, 4's, and 6's were the choices.) They were all 1 oz loads. That study is 15+ years old, and there are certainly better steel loads now than were available back then. (And steel loads are also less expensive than they used to be, to the point that cost is really no longer a factor if you're talking good steel vs "premium" lead loads for upland hunting.) But the wounding loss rate in Roster's study was over 12%, which I consider unacceptable if you're hunting over a decent dog. And those were preserve birds, which are easier to recover in my experience than wild ones. Perhaps not surprising given the loads involved. But it would still be valuable to do a similar blind study comparing good lead loads to good steel loads. Roster's shooters got very good results with steel inside of 30 yards, but lost a lot of cripples on birds hit at longer ranges. If steel is shown to be less effective than lead, that would seem to be one good reason to contest any moves to mandate nontox in the uplands, given that the ingestion of lead shot and resulting mortality does not appear to be an issue with upland birds.

Franchi, the truth regarding the potential danger of spent lead shot to upland birds (or, for that matter, other species of wildlife) is pretty hard to come by, given the nature of upland hunting. Shot fall, other than on areas heavily hunted for doves, is far more dispersed than it is on heavily hunted waterfowl areas.

While I agree a good load of #4's is pure death on pretty much any bird that toys, I think we get too caught up with the idea you need hyper speed and loads to kill pheasants. I whacked the heck out of wild SD roosters in December this year with 7/8oz of #5's from RST. I used my 20ga LC Smith with 26" barrels choked IC/M. The furthest bird killed was on honest 50 yards. If you put the pattern on the bird, the bird dies. It really is that simple and I believe we overthink things too much.

McIntosh, Hill and Brister all sang the praises of the old "super pigeon" formula: 3 1/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz 6's. That's about a 1220 fps load. I don't necessarily believe you need that much shot, but it does pattern very well and is, as McIntosh said, a very good all-around choice. We're now seeing premium lead loads that are 300 fps faster than that. I don't think pheasants have gotten any harder to kill than they were when the 3 gentlemen I named were shooting them. At least I haven't observed that they are.

The 20 ga., 1 oz. , #4 loads I was using Saturday were exactly that......1220 fps.

SRH

The fact that 1 3/8 oz. of 4's was Nash Buckingham's choice for ducks and geese is testament to the effectiveness of good 'ol lead no. 4 shot.....and Buckingham's ability with a shotgun.

The ranges at which waterfowl are shot are longer than typical upland ranges. And waterfowl--at least of mallard size or larger--are bigger and tougher than any upland birds we shoot, with the possible exception of pheasants. Heavy loads of larger shot and quite a bit of choke are the solution . . . for those waterfowlers who are capable of taking advantage of those heavy loads and tight chokes.

O'Connor, in his "Shotgun Book", writes about a hunting companion who got good results on pheasants with 1 1/4 oz 4's through an IC choke. Jack patterned that load at 35 yards and said there were holes through which you could throw a cocker spaniel. Yet his friend did very well with it.

What I find to be O'Connor's best advice in that chapter: "Far fewer wounded birds would escape if pheasant hunters never shot at birds over 45 yards and seldom over 40 yards." In addition to having owned some good dogs and to have given them a lot of experience on wild pheasants, another factor that's worked to keep the number of cripples I've lost to a minimum is that I try to show restraint when it comes to long shots.

Larry,
I have had the exact same experience with 1 1/4oz of 4s through an IC choke. Makes you wonder where they all went. Put a single #4 pellet in center mass of a bird and it likely doesn't matter where the rest of them went.
I'm not one of them, but, I've hunted with guys who were very reliable at knocking down birds at 40+ yards. There were a lot of 12 gauges with modified chokes and store bought 1 1/4 oz loads of 5s and 6s along with those guys.
I like 5s on wild MN pheasants. I have a ton of old 1 1/4oz 12 gauge loads in 4 that I'd happily trade to someone for 5s, or even 6s.

Best,
Ted

Here's the product of 12 ga. 2 3/4" 1 3/8 oz. lead #4 reloads many tides ago. Matthew Brady was the photographer and Ithaca the gunmaker.

. That's a good one, Gil. Heard a guy say this morning that he was so old that when he was born the Dead Sea wasn't even sick yet.

SRH

When notox became mandatory, I still had a stash of 1 1/4 ounce soft #4 loaded up with Herco to about 1225 fps in fairly fresh AA hulls. A few years ago, I got a burr under my saddle and decided to pattern a few of them in long barrel Foxes. I never got past the first 30" Sterlingworth that was bored just a little over .040 ahead of a standard .730 bore. I shot the first patterns at 40 yards. The pattern was so tight that any mallard or pheasant would have been ruined. I went back to 60 yards, and still had a pattern that would have been instant death on a mallard, pheasant, or goose. I have had the same patterning experience with my old AYA light ten. Patterns at 40 to 60 yards with BB and #2 steel were astounding. I sold the gun, but saved the patterns. You never know whether a goose you kill already has shot in him, but my AYA has killed at 90 yards or better with steel BB. I don't know what this proves, except that tight chokes and big shot are the order of the day for long birds.

eightbore, Brister makes pretty much the same point in his book. He points out that the same choke/load combination is a handicap at closer ranges. But if you're going to shoot long, you need tight patterns and large shot.

I've done a bit of testing with the new 1500 fps lead loads. In terms of pattern density, they lose in comparison to both the Super-X type loads (3 3/4 DE, 1 1/4 oz, 1330 fps) and the old 1220 fps Super Pigeon loads. I found a slight advantage to the
Super Pigeons over the Super-X, but not very much. I don't know why we have this desire for bigger and faster, because they certainly don't seem to be better.

Are you a ballistics expert Larry, or do you just think you know more than the ballisticians who develop ammunition for Winchester? If you place the same standard upon yourself that you do to other people, you would have to disqualify yourself from giving your opinion on ballistics and ammunition performance. I'm pretty sure you will find my question to be a problem, even though you recently questioned the ability of craigd and myself to critically analyze and question obvious junk science pertaining to lead ammunition bans. My education wasn't enough for you, so show us YOUR beef.

What is the difference in velocity at 50 yards for #4 steel @ muzzle velocity of 1,500 fps vs muzzle velocity of 1,250 fps? How about the same numbers for lead?

Keith, ammunition performance is something that can be OBSERVED. In my case, if I'm comparing loads, I start by tearing a couple apart and doing a pellet count. I've found, for example, that the "book" figure of 225 US 6's per ounce can vary significantly from one brand to another. I've counted around 200/oz in some; close to 250 in others. My conclusion, based on observation, is that you cannot comment accurately on pattern density as a % by relying on "book" values for an accurate pellet count. Obviously, if one load has 250 pellets vs another than has only 200, the load with 250 stands an excellent chance of delivering more pellet strikes within a 30" circle. But even there, one can be surprised--which is why you need to shoot patterns and count holes. For example, Kent used to make a very hot 16ga nickel plated lead load. I tested some in 7 1/2, 1 ounce, and compared to other loads with 1 1/8 oz 7 1/2. I was surprised to find that the Kent load, starting with a deficit of something like 40+ pellets vs the others, delivered more hits in the 30" circle than did the 1 1/8 oz loads. So stuff like that can be observed. Doesn't make me a ballistician, but you don't need to be a ballistician to count pellets and shoot patterns.

Now if you're going to tell me that you and Craig based your conclusion of "obvious junk science" based on observation vs whatever you may consider to be "logic", then you have a point. So tell me about all the sick or dead ducks that you examined, necropsied, checked for the presence or absence of lead shot, tested for lead levels in the blood or bones . . . then you're showing me some "beef". Otherwise, all you have is a "beef" with what you contend to be junk science, which does not seem to be based on observation. You don't need to be a scientist to employ the scientific method, but you do need to go a bit beyond "This is obviously junk science because . . .", unless it's "because I've done some testing and made observations, and here's what I've found."

As hunters and shooters, we can all discuss ballistics from a standpoint of "here's what works for me". Or we can get a bit more scientific by shooting patterns, examining various loads, etc. Far from me to tell people who shoot pheasants with 4's that they don't work or that they're a bad choice if those loads work for them. All I can say is that I've never used anything larger than 5's, and 6's seem to me--based on experience gathered from a few thousand pheasants I've shot--will work quite well if you're not shooting a lot of birds beyond 40 yards.

Larry you know that counting all those little pellets and holes only makes sense to a guy with little to no shotgun experience....I was once a hole counter.

Point being that if after shooting enough patterns you can't just tell by looking at them their effectiveness then you need to just throw in the towel.

Thanks for the update Larry. Maybe we've made a bit of progress here, looks like you found a piece two that discussed the significance of lead levels in bone. I saw that snuck in there.

Out of context and quoted in my prefered method, a page back you mentioned, 'the truth regarding the potential danger of spent lead shot to upland birds (or, for that matter, other species of wildlife) is pretty hard to come by'. Short of shooting test patterns, I mean telling about all the sick and dead ducks that you've personally tested and examined. How come you always get the 'good' science on your side?

Thanks again for explaining how your work with waterfowl validates the methodology used in shotshell ballistic testing. I've always said you make some good points. Why bring up comments about standards that you don't hold yourself up to?

Larry, science that is obviously bad is also something that can be observed by intelligent laymen, although it takes more brains than counting pellets. Maybe it's best that you just stick to your own skill level. But you attempted to discredit craigd and I in the recent Condor thread on the dubious notion that we are not experts in the field of Wildlife Biology. However, when so-called experts are all over the map on something as obvious as what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, eagles or condors... and the stated difference in ppm or mcg/dl is on the order of 20 to 50 times for a lethal dose between so-called "experts"... well it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that something is very fishy in the data being presented, and being used against us.

It is equally fishy when a big time professional outdoors writer such as yourself discounts such obvious discrepancies as some flawed "logic" rather than a valid observation, and attempts to discredit or demonize anyone who questions your equally obvious biases. We provided several glaring examples of flawed or false science, but you couldn't admit that the flawed data you cling to like a security blanket could be wrong. That behavior became even more egregious and laughable when you kept returning to your silly notions about the North Dakota Ground Venison study, which has been TOTALLY discredited by numerous other researchers including those in your own Iowa Fish and Game Agency. It has been known that the North Dakota study was flawed since before 2008. I kept dropping hints so you could check it out instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself. But you keep pushing that tired old dog to hunt. You, who was hiding behind the fact that craigd and I were not so-called "experts" was repeatedly showing us his own extreme prejudice and lack of knowledge or expertise. That's why I was happy to drag the discussion out rather than just hit you with all of your errors at once. Too bad the thread got locked. Read this, especially paragraph 9, and get to work on those powers of observation instead of just regurgitating crap:

https://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/leadcap1008.pdf



Speaking of your lack of expertise, I was surprised you didn't go on and on for several days with Miller over the correction he gave you in the post above 5 days ago. Have you finally learned that Miller doesn't back down when he's right and you are wrong? Drew posts early smokeless shotshell pressures here all the time, while you mentioned vague unnamed contemporary sources that happened to be wrong, if they really even existed. Maybe you should try exercising your excellent powers of observation and leave the ballistics discussions to those who can do more than count pellets and holes in paper made by a single shotgun.

Keith and Craig, if you want to continue to discuss the lead shot issue, please start a new topic so as not to derail this one. And as I have pointed out to you two--repeatedly--if the lead ban for waterfowl was based on junk science, then there ought to be SOME CONTRARIAN SCIENCE. That is, studies by scientists that actually dispute all the stuff you guys call "junk". Please note, once again, that when it comes to climate change, there are scientists who dispute the concept of man-made global warming. And have said so. I find it hard to believe that while there are scientists who will challenge global warming, you guys haven't come up with any who will challenge the lead ban for waterfowl as junk science. Yet you keep trying to present yourselves as the Mr. Wizards and Dr. Spocks of the lead poisoning world. If "laymen" like you guys can dispute what you see as not being logical about the lead shot ban, then is it logical to think that no scientists--apparently not a single one, based on the lack of evidence you've come up with--would have spotted the same inconsistencies upon which you reach your "junk science" conclusions? Gosh . . . you guys aren't just smarter than most of those trained and experienced in the field of wildlife biology and science. You think you're smarter than ALL of them! Don't hurt your arms patting yourselves on the back. And please do come back . . . once you've found ONE SINGLE CONTRARIAN SCIENTIST who agrees with you that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. You've been given that homework assignment before, and you keep coming back empty-handed. Guess your grade of "incomplete" will have to stand. I'm done with you, until you come up with the "beef".

No problem Larry.

Earlier, I felt kind of bad bringing up 7 1/2 shot, but Stan triggered good memories. So, I had to interject myself, non scientifically about long gone good ole days. My mistake, I wasn't called out by name.

Larry, I told you in the locked Condor thread that there is lots of contrarian science that effectively disputes much of the junk science that was used to advance the 1991 Federal Lead Shot Ban, and subsequent lead ammo bans in California and elsewhere. However, if they don't come right out in the abstract and say that the purpose of their research is specifically to debunk the Lead Shot Ban for Waterfowl, it just doesn't meet your standards for excellence. But you were also stuck on using selective editing of the Audobon statement on sport hunting, and defending junk like your precious North Dakota Ground Venison study, in order to support your erroneous notions about waterfowl and the lead bullets used by deer hunters. We never got past that and your childish demands for what is readily available with little effort. What little we gave you was dismissed out of hand and I'm pretty sure you are still clinging to your preconceived notions. You also didn't show us any BEEF, and you refused to acknowledge glaring examples of absolute garbage. It was easier to discredit craigd and myself than to admit you might be wrong. You demanded BEEF when you repeatedly showed us that you weren't even capable of digesting Pablum. The contrarian science on lead ammunition is out there Larry, but you won't acknowledge it when it hits you right between the eyes. Don't bother grading my performance Larry. I've seen your own abysmal performance when it comes to selective editing, putting words in my mouth which I never said, denying your own words, and attempting to discredit anyone who points out your errors. I happen to think you derailed this topic because you are not a ballistics expert. Maybe YOU should start another thread where you can count pellets and holes and promote the work of a guy who claims that ballistically inferior steel is as good or better than lead.

I'm just giving you a dose of your own medicine, and it appears you don't like it.

Back to the topic, I would still like information on the above questions.

I have an old chart published many years ago by Winchester for lead. It doesn't cover the ranges though you asked for, only going up to 1330 fps on the high end but down to 1135 on the low end. Here are the results for #4 lead @ 20, 40 & 60 yds.
MV = 1330-----20yd-V = 1010------40yd-V = 815-----60yd-V = 685
MV = 1235-----20yd-V = 955-------40yd-V = 780-----60yd-V = 660
MV = 1135-----20yd-V = 895-------40yd-V = 740-----60yd-V = 630
From these figures can be seen how quickly round pellets lose speed above the speed of sound. Here 195 fps difference at the muzzle results in a difference of only 55 fps by 60 yds. Steel being much less dense than lead with a lower sectional density will of course fare much worse than lead. To get sufficient velocity for adequate penetration for clean kills it is necessary to use much higher initial velocity or increased pellet sizes, or a combination of both, over the use of lead.

Thanks, Miller. Does #8 shot have less difference between lower and higher mv downrange? I.e. is the 55 fps difference at 60 yds., with #4s, less with #8s?

Thanks, SRH

I've asked for it before. You've come up empty before. If you have it, start another thread on the subject. And post the links. Simple as that.

cpa, here's what I find in Taylor's "Shotshells & Ballistics": 1500 fps MV, #4 steel: 590 fps @ 50 yds. 1250 fps MV, 536 fps @ 50 yds.

Same book, #4 lead: Can't give you 1500 fps. 1400 is the fastest listed: 710 fps @ 50 yds. 1250 MV: 665 fps @ 50 yds.

Comparing with Miller's post, the charts in this book give slightly slower down range velocities.

Stan, comparing 8's @ 60 yds, MV for the 1135 fps load is 438 fps; for the 1330 fps load, 477 fps. The difference for 4's @60 yds, 1330 fps vs 1145 fps: 618 vs 569.

Thanks Larry.

SRH

#4 steel comparisons don't mean much to hunters who normally use much larger size steel shot, not just for geese, but for ducks. My experience with #2 and #BB in 1 3/4 ounce 3 1/2" ten gauge loads and tight chokes has taught me that I am not working under much if any handicap compared to lead or expensive no tox loads in 12 gauge guns. My "lifetime" supply of 1 3/4 ounce steel ten gauge shells is all I have used for years for waterfowl. My initial investment was about $5.00 a box of 25 on closeout many years ago.

I tell you what I'm so disappointed in about all this, Stan didn't post pictures of the shoot.

Stan;
My chart doesn't have #8 shot listed at those extremes, but does have #7½. At the 60 yd mark the 1330 load had dropped to 580 while the 1135 load had dropped to 540 so only 40 fps difference at 60 yds for the 195 fps difference at the muzzle.The # 7½ size lost more over the first 20 yds than did the #4 size.
This is all based on two factors, first drag increases tremendously when the speed of sound is passed.
Secondly as all round pellets have the same shape ballistic coefficient is base purely on their weight versus their drag/surface area. Weight of a sphere goes up proportionately to the cube of its diameter while its surface area goes up proportionate to the square of its diameter. Thus as long as made from the same material the larger the ball/pellet the higher its BC so the better it retains speed. A given size of lead pellet though weighs some 45% more than a steel pellet of the same size so retains speed much better. This is why it is necessary to GO UP in size when using steel.

Thanks for the replies. About what I expected, though interesting. I guess every little bit helps at long distances.

Thanks, Mike. Sorry, I just didn't think about taking any pics that time. If I get another opportunity to, I will.

SRH

No Larry, it's not that simple. You don't run me, and I don't take orders from you. I told you in the Condor thread that you are obviously not yet ready to digest studies that debunk the junk science on lead ammunition that you cling to. You need to grow up and get past your reading comprehension problems first.

What did you think you were going to accomplish with your insulting PM to me yesterday, along with wild-assed explanations that bore no resemblance to what you stated in that Condor thread? And why did you send a second PM to me after I told you, "Go try to intimidate someone else. It won't fly with me. I'd prefer to have this discussion in the open forum where everyone can see what you are doing."?

In the Condor thread you were obviously referring to the original North Dakota study on lead in venison. You mentioned it several times, and in your post #434842 on 2/1/16, you clearly stated:

"Lead in any meat is going to cause "food safety questions" . . . mostly by those who don't eat it. And by those in the health industry. The ND study on lead levels in humans came about as a result of a study in which 53 out or 95 packets of ground venison donated to food pantries contained lead fragments. As a result the ND Dept of Health temporarily halted distribution of venison to food pantries. Like I said, guys who hunt with lead bullets have an issue to deal with. Not throwing them under the bus; simply allowing those who've done more research in that area than I have and who know more about it to present their views in case someone proposes a lead bullet ban."

That figure of lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison is right out of the original study that was done by a dermatologist who just happened to also be a falconer and a member of the anti-lead ammunition Peregrine Fund. Here's the flawed "research" for you to try to comprehend... all 31 pages.

North Dakota Study on Lead in Ground Venison

It was the work of the dermatologist/falcon lover Dr. William Cornatzer, who claimed to find lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison, that was discredited by numerous State Game agencies and researchers, including those from Iowa. Actually, Dr. Cornatzer was on the Board of Directors of the anti-lead Peregrine Fund, and had been active in anti-lead ammunition initiatives in California. But the methodology of the CDC's 2008 follow-up study was flawed as well. And why would I care about what you may or may not have written in your magazine articles... which I never read? I was responding to what you posted right here on this BBS. Of course, between your arrogance and crude insults, there was more back-pedaling and excuse making similar your earlier reply to my quoting of your "Lead is toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement. That quote was from your post #434181 on 1/26/16 where anyone could see that your statement wasn't worded to convey that those were the sentiments of the anti-lead public, and not yourself. If that wasn't what you meant to convey, you shouldn't have written it. By then, you had also made numerous posts that did in fact throw deer hunters under the bus and had found fault with hunting with lead in just about everything except upland game hunting. Of course, several guys besides me had noticed the same thing.

I doubt if you'll be able to find any flawed methodology in that North Dakota study, because you'll be too busy concentrating on some way to avoid admitting that you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Figured you couldn't come up with anything new on the "junk science" that supported the lead ban for waterfowl. More bluff and blather.

Where did I make any comment at all on the validity of the study that found lead fragments in ground venison? You keep missing the point. That study, flawed or not, resulted in another study: By the CDC, of the blood lead level of North Dakota residents. And the CDC study is very GOOD news for those who want to continue shooting lead, because it showed that the average blood lead level of everyone in that ND study was lower than the national average--which would indicate that ingesting lead from wild game isn't much of an issue as far as human health is concerned. The National Shooting Sports Foundation made the following statement in a press release, concerning the ND CDC study:

"The CDC report on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that traditional ammunition poses no health risk to people and that the call to ban lead ammunition was nothing more than a scare tactic being pursued by anti-hunting groups."

Once more: Lead poisoning isn't the subject of this thread. Start a new one . . . if you have anything new or worthwhile to contribute.

Poor Larry. Still trying to hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself? The original topic of this thread is #4 lead shot, but that didn't stop you from going off-topic and talking about steel shot and hunting waterfowl that can no longer be hunted with any lead shot in the U.S. or Canada. So why don't you start a new thread to enthrall us all with your vast shotgun and pellet counting knowledge?

I see you backed away from that wild claim you made earlier when you said this about your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad." statement:



It would be impossible for you to support that lame excuse to anyone who took the time to actually read that whole post (#434181 on 1/26/16), especially after all of the other posts you made in the Condor thread preceding it. But I guess it was more important to attempt to discredit me than to tell the truth.

If you didn't consider the original North Dakota data on lead fragments in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison valid, then why did you keep repeating it... along with your many unproven statements about seeing eagles feeding on almost every road killed deer you saw in Wisconsin, comments on eagles feeding on hunter shot deer carcasses or gut piles that are contaminated with lead bullet fragments, and the obviously biased data on the alleged large amount of lead bullet fragments found in gut piles and dead game animals? I didn't miss your actual points within that thread, and neither did craigd or any of the several other guys who disagreed with you.

Besides, we weren't discussing blood lead levels in humans. Your big concern was raptors that had allegedly been getting sick and dying from eating lead tainted ducks and geese until the 1991 ban on lead shot, and then apparently moving on to consuming lead tainted deer and gut piles that were chock full of lead bullet fragments. That, and the problem rifle hunters faced in justifying the continued use of lead bullets.

Since you are such a great ballistics expert Larry, did you ever stop to think about those alleged bullet fragments that supposedly ended up 2 to 3 feet from the wound channel in Dr. Comatzer's junk study? He said that many of these particles that showed up on CT scans were difficult or impossible to locate within the meat because the particles were usually extremely small... down to dust size. So Mr. Ballistics Expert, how does a dust sized fragment of lead take a near right angle turn, and travel so far from the wound channel through muscle, entrails, and other tissue? What is the sectional density of tiny particles and lead dust?

And isn't that exactly why I have said you aren't ready to engage in a discussion on all of the science that is readily available to anyone with an interest... Science that opposes the junk science that you tout, and that was used to support the Federal lead shot ban in 1991? Do you really think I'd just be bluffing about something like that? If you did ten minutes of serious searching, and had the ability to differentiate between good science and agenda driven garbage, you'd quickly realize that you are wrong. But being able to admit you are wrong just isn't in you. You keep demanding something that you couldn't understand and would never accept, and would sooner shoot any messenger who disputes your beliefs. A smart guy like you should understand by now that attempting to dishonestly discredit me isn't going to make me go away.

Gentlemen, gentlemen! This appears to be a heated issue betwixt you. Please take a step back, go burn some powder while taking the aggravation out on some clays, and enjoy your doubles for a couple days. Most clubs are open tomorrow, and it's supposed to be beautiful weather in many places. I for one don't know much on the topic so would enjoy reading a POLITE new thread on the subject. Cheers!

claycrusher, if you are seriously interested in the ongoing lead ammunition dispute, there is a veritable ton of information on both sides of the debate. Here is just one little link that will take you to a page with over 40 other links to research papers and studies that refute much of the anti-lead propaganda that passes as science which is routinely used against shooters and hunters. This is not for Larry. He's too entrenched in trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with him.

http://www.huntfortruth.org/science/scientific-opinions/papersstudies/

You can also do searches on any search engine to find enough reading to keep you busy for months or years. Many of the anti-lead arguments you'll also find are pretty persuasive until you actually use your brain and your other senses to see through conflicting data, unverified opinions passed off as real science, and pure agenda driven Bullshit. In many instances, as with the situation involving the aforementioned North Dakota study by Dr. William Comatzer of the Peregrine Fund, you have to follow the money or do some sleuthing to see what their actual motivations or affiliations are.

Nice to see you are an NRA Patron Life Member. The NRA has been at the forefront in this battle for years, and they are another good source for information on the subject. An NRA membership is the best and cheapest gun insurance any gun owner can buy and membership also gives you $2500 of Firearms Insurance as just one of the member benefits. You also get a magazine subscription that has a lot of information you won't find in other news sources. There is currently a $10.00 discount to join for annual memberships, and in the current political climate and an election year, a lot of new members will send a loud and clear message. Not bad for only $25.00 a year.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=XR020795

Thank you Keith. I've just started waterfowl hunting, always been a deer hunter, so know nothing besides that one cannot use lead.

And Life Memberships are only $500- far cheaper than when I got mine. And upgrades are $250 for another couple weeks, which I took advantage of.

Keith, how about a comment re the effectiveness of #4 lead shot on pheasants? That's the subject of THIS thread.

I see you're avoiding my challenge to actually start a thread with evidence from some contrarian SCIENTIST (that would not be you, nor Craig, nor me for that matter) debunking all the "junk science" surrounding lead in waterfowl. Stupid of you to argue with me about what I've seen, or me with you about what you've seen . . . although I saw a bald eagle in Iowa, just yesterday, feasting on a road-killed deer. Same area where I used to live and hunt 25+ years ago . . . and never saw bald eagles. But that's all anecdotal, not terribly scientific. I've never held up my observations--nor my opinions, for that matter--as good science. The difference between us is that you do.

You remind me of a dog that's in serious need of a bark collar.

Thanks for starting this new thread Larry. It'll take me quite a while to read the good links that you provided, and correlate it to your scientific findings. Disclaimer, snipped and quoted in my prefered method.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you went off topic and mention road-kill. Apparently, the formerly 'good science', your observational opinion, that deer hunters are in a heap of environmental trouble except for their political clout, is now not good enough? Not long ago, you were very adamant that Mr. eagle was likely consuming lead fragments. You make an excellent contrarian scientist, but can I suggest it be contrarian to me for the sake of barking, rather than contrarian to your recent position.

Hey, did you know that all waterfowl/lead shot science has to be 'good' because waterfowl are only hunted in small, concentrated, heavily used areas, and the uplands are always, except for migratory doves, spread over vast, miniscule concentration lead safe zones? Thus, the beauty of #4 lead shot.

I have found that with #4 shot: the right load in the right gun in the right hands is extremely effective. Holds true whether at 20 yards (more open chokes! The right gun) or at 50 yards. Again, using an appropriate gun in the right hands. Added bonus is having to pick little or no shot out of the bird

Craig, you have a comment to make on the effectiveness of lead 4's? And I didn't start this thread. Just commented--including providing some information on down-range velocity of steel vs lead 4's--on the subject at hand. But I keep hearing babble from the peanut gallery about stuff that hasn't a thing to with the effectiveness of lead 4's. I'd think that between you and Keith--since you suggest that you have the smarts to discriminate between good science and "junk" science--you could manage to start a new topic on whatever it is you really want to talk about. Rather than making "junk" posts that have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

Larry, you tend to have an extremely selective memory, that's why I choose to quote you in my prefered way. You seem to be much more versed in the ballistics of number four lead shot that I'll ever be, but it really doesn't show in the quotes I pulled off your comments on this thread. I promise to get very little satisfaction out of peeing on threads, but will quote enough of your words should I get prompted enough to comment.

Yeah craigd, you gotta quote Larry because he can't remember what he says. First he said this to me:



Then Larry said this less than an hour and a half later:




jOe had it absolutely right when he said:

More lies and bullshit from the Great Larry Brown. Please show us where I ever held up either my observations, or my opinions for that matter-- as good science.

C'mon Larry, put up or shut up. This is not the first time you've tried pulling this shit, and you just dance away from the subject and go back to your childish demands when you get caught. This is precisely why I told you a few weeks ago in the Condor Thread that you were not ready to digest any science that refutes much of the junk science pertaining to lead ammunition. I keep explaining this to you and providing proof that you are incapable of processing that kind of information, and you keep acting like Ed Good on steroids.

You keep accusing me of things I never said, and you exhibit extremely poor reading comprehension. You have been caught doing selective editing of Audobon's stance on hunting (in the Condor Thread) in a manner that supported your incorrect opinions of them. You are much more interested in discrediting anyone who does not agree with you than simply opening your eyes to obvious errors. Really Larry, when one source says that only one piece of #4 lead shot in a mallard duck's crop is a lethal dose, and the next so-called study reports that a sick mallard was brought in with over 80 pieces of lead shot in the crop, do you really have to be a qualified expert to see a glaring discrepancy or know something is fishy? I never claimed to be a qualified expert and never ever said that my opinions were science. So why do you persist in lying about me?

I will be waiting for you to show us where I ever said such a thing, and I will continue to ask you until you either produce it, or apologize for telling lies about me. Count on it.

Do you really think Larry is well versed in ballistics craigd? I think he just regurgitates what he reads elsewhere. Even Jagermeister can do that. I asked Larry to explain something amazing pertaining to ballistics from the so-called study done by Dr. William Cormatzer, and instead of giving an answer, he chose to sidestep it by discrediting you and me.



In the quote above Larry, it looks as if you were ignoring the same advice you keep giving to craigd and I. Why is it OK for you to go off topic and discuss nontox shot or possible lead shot bans with Franchi? What makes us subject to a different set of rules? Nothing in that post #436587 had anything to do with comparing the effectiveness of steel to lead #4's. I quoted the whole post because I wouldn't put it past you to go back and change it. Why would I trust you when you use lies in an attempt to discredit me? That entire post was as off topic as anything within this thread. Don't bother asking me to remain on topic again. Why should I when you don't?

I believe jOe got his manners from the Donald Trump school of etiquette. I have always said there are a lot of stupid people in the world and jOe proves it.

Couple others here as well. I'm beginning to think trolls have taken to wandering, leaving their bridges vacant.

A troll is no worse than those who persistently respond to them. Takes two to tango.

SRH

Lots of "last word-itis" around here.

One particular means of Trolling often used here is to make a totally baseless accusation, and then refuse to retract it or correct it when called on it, as Larry Brown has done today.

We saw the same behavior with Ed Good in the Second Amendment Informational Thread over the last couple days, and that is precisely why I compared Larry to Ed.

You made a false statement about me Larry. You know it and so does anyone who can read. You also engaged in selective editing about Audobon's total position on sport hunting in the Condor thread in order to support your erroneous opinion, and then attempted to defend that behavior by trying to equate what you did with what craigd did. When you couldn't accept simple observations made in accordance with generally accepted notions, you attempted to denigrate and discredit the observers. It takes a man to admit when he is wrong. Nobody will accuse you of being a man.

How's the weather under your bridge Larry?

OK Keith . . . let's take a look at "Audubon's total position on sport hunting". Here it is, IN ITS ENTIRETY . . . straight out of a booklet by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (pretty good, solid pro-hunting source, right?) called "What They Say About Hunting".

"The National Audubon Society has never been opposed to hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource. We have made this clear repeatedly in official statements of policy, and it remains Audubon policy."

"Audubon will advocate restrictions on hunting including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species requires it. However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues."

Now perhaps that does not meet the Keith definition of "pro-hunting", but it's clearly not anti-hunting. "Neutral" would be a good description in my book. And some people seem to have trouble remembering that as hunters, we are badly outnumbered. Not so much by anti-hunters, but by the very large NEUTRAL majority: the non-hunters. And, as a member of the Ruffed Grouse Society (DEFINITELY pro-hunting), I've worked with that particular "neutral" group on habitat projects--on both public and private land--that benefit species we hunt (grouse and woodcock), and therefore also benefit those who hunt grouse and woodcock. No use throwing the neutrals under the bus, especially when they're willing and able to make common cause with us hunters. Having Audubon working with your hunting group as an ally causes other "neutrals" to sit up and say, "Hey, look there, even the birders are in favor of those projects. So it's not just the hunters!" That's good for us.

Keith, I learned a long time ago that it's a waste of time to fight lost battles. Lead for waterfowl is a lost battle. Lead in California, headed the same way. But here's your problem, if you want to continue to beat a couple dead horses: I'm not going to comment on whether the science behind those lead ammo restrictions was good science or not. It does, however, appear to be "settled science". If you choose to disagree with that term, try disagreeing with "settled law". Go shoot some ducks with lead and tell the game warden that it's OK because the lead shot ban is junk science and see how far you get.

In order for you to contest what is now "settled law"--regulations that are being enforced--you are in the position of the football coach who throws the flag and asks for a review of a call the officials have just made. THAT CALL WILL STAND UNLESS THE REFS SEE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY BLEW IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND. So, that puts you in the position of providing the irrefutable evidence . . . that is, if you really want to "prove" something rather than just making noise. And no, "simple observations made in accordance with generally accepted notions" do NOT meet the standard of irrefutable evidence. And when you suggest that they do, it seems to me you're putting yourself and your argument above what you consider "junk science"--but which the powers that be consider "good science", because they've used it as the basis for what is now settled law. And here's where your argument leads:

1. If your simple observations and generally accepted notions are in fact so simple and so generally accepted, then how come none of the many wildlife biologists--scientifically trained people--manage to miss them when you find them so easy to spot? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Are you telling us that you're smarter than all those wildlife biologists? And however smart you are or aren't, you will admit--I think--that you're not a wildlife biologist. And remember, the decision to get rid of lead for waterfowl wasn't made overnight. Discussions and research went on for YEARS, before USFWS issued the nationwide regulation in 1991.

2. If you don't claim to be smarter than all those wildlife biologists, then it seems to me the only other possibility is that there was a massive conspiracy among them to foist "junk science" upon us, in the form of the lead shot ban. And having worked where everyone is positive all kinds of conspiracies are hatched up (CIA), I can tell you that the flaw with your average conspiracy theory is that it's going to become public very quickly, if a whole bunch of people are expected to stay quiet about it. Successful conspiracies involve very few conspirators. And now, a quarter century later, if there had been such a conspiracy, then surely someone would have gone public with a statement revealing the scope of that massive conspiracy.

Yet you haven't been able to find anyone who falls into either category 1 or 2: a scientist who saw what you see and interprets it as evidence of junk science; or a scientist who is now prepared to "tell all" about the great lead shot ban conspiracy.

And we can add one more group that I've left out:

3. Then there's always Ducks Unlimited (which seems to have no beef with the "junk science") and Delta Waterfowl (thought you and Craig were going to research that one)--who surely would have opposed junk science that is going to have a direct influence on their membership. If not those two groups, there are also at least dozens of outdoor writers who are very knowledgeable in the field of waterfowl hunting. (I am NOT one of them!) Bad science behind the lead shot ban? A conspiracy to keep quiet about the junk science? Any outdoor writer who could have uncovered something of that nature would have immediately become the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate, only for waterfowl hunters. That would have been an absolutely amazing, ground-breaking piece of investigative work--one that any waterfowl hunting writer would have been proud to do.

So we're back to square one. If you think your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" meet the standard of irrefutable evidence that will overturn settled law, then I suggest that you make your case. To DU, to Delta Waterfowl, to Field & Stream or anyone else you wish. Or find yourself a wildlife biologist who specializes in waterfowl and run your ideas past him. Ever think to give that a try? Because right now, you're not proving anything to anybody. Your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" only debunk what you call "junk science" in your mind. Not in the mind of anyone who matters. And the only people who matter are the ones who have evaluated and acted on the scientific information--junk or good--behind the settled law that is the lead ban for waterfowl.

You want to start a thread on some other aspect of lead shot, lead bullets, lead poisoning? No matter how much you may think it's all "junk", the unfortunate truth is that incidents like lead in the water in Flint and eagles dying of lead poisoning will continue to cause problems for hunters, whether they should or not. That's because far too many people believe that lead is bad; therefore, let's get rid of it all. I'm prepared to contest that position--and have done so, in print--in the area with which I am familiar, and addressing the audience which my magazine (Pointing Dog Journal) targets: upland bird hunters. I think I did so quite effectively, pointing out that there is little or no evidence of a problem with wild upland birds (other than doves) ingesting lead shot; that there have been no blind tests conducted comparing steel to lead shot on upland birds, to see whether a switch to steel might result in greater losses of wounded and unrecovered birds; that there are far more shotguns (especially important to those who participate on THIS BB) than the anti-lead folks contend through which steel shot can't be used; and that there isn't much evidence that the consumption of game shot with lead poses a significant human health risk. There are other areas to be dealt with, and I leave it to my fellow outdoor writers, with greater expertise in those specific areas than I have, to make the case for their continued use of lead ammunition.

Failing the appearance of another topic concerning lead on which I feel I have something worth contributing, I'm done here. Usually, somebody pays me when I write this much!

The older I get......the more I prefer lighter loads and larger shot size.

I never said Audobon was anti-hunting Larry. I said that they have supported lead ammunition bans in California and have taken anti-lead ammo positions. You came back with a cherry picked part of their position statement in your post #433652. You went on and on to tell us how they are such great allies of hunters, and to tell us you could not find any information to support what I said (your post #433888). I confronted you with facts and links showing their anti-lead efforts... even from Audobon's own website-- http://ca.audubon.org/banning-lead-ammunition-condor-habitat -- Then craigd busted you on leaving out the part of Audobon's statement that proved you wrong. It's all still there and nobody can edit or change it because the thread has been locked. I said that you selectively edited their position statement in order to back up your erroneous assertions which you made in the Condor thread. You did in fact do that Larry. Too bad you didn't quote the entire statement back then instead of cherry-picking only the good parts.

You took craigd to task for also only quoting part of that statement, however his intent wasn't to mislead anyone, but only to prove that you were misleading us. He did that very effectively, and it wasn't necessary for him to quote their entire statement to do that. You equated his behavior with your own deplorable behavior. Printing their entire position statement here now doesn't change what you tried to do in the Condor thread. I think that showed us the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting you are wrong.

You sure went to a lot of trouble here, and still look foolish. And you are still twisting and twirling like a dervish to dodge away from the false statement you made about me yesterday. Keep flailing.

By the way... speaking of your inability to read and comprehend... I have found plenty of studies that refute much of the garbage you call science. I've told you that numerous times, but I also told you that you aren't smart enough to digest them, and you aren't motivated enough to even look for them on your own. Of course, you claimed you couldn't find any information that Audobon had supported lead ammo bans, and it took me less than a minute to find that link I posted above on their own website. That's not very impressive for an ex-CIA guy Larry. You are entrenched in your beliefs, and all too intent on dishonestly discrediting anyone who disagrees with you, in my opinion. I have already responded to much of what you repeated above within the Condor thread, and being insanely redundant isn't addressing the false statement you made about me. And you still haven't shown us any conclusive proof that all of those millions of ducks and geese that were alleged to be dying from lead shot prior to 1991 actually were. So enough with attempting to place demands upon me while exempting yourself from the same standards. I'm on to your game and you don't intimidate me or impress me.

I'll agree that you have been consistent in discrediting and opposing lead shot bans for UPLAND GAME... except doves, in your recent and past posts here. As craigd has noted, you seem to automatically consider doves at more risk. I don't read your magazine articles, and certainly don't plan to start now after seeing how you operate. But your comments and abject refusal to even consider great disparities in different studies, and obvious anti-lead and anti-hunting bias, (as with Peregrine Fund's Dr Cormatzer for just one example) with the lame excuse that craigd or I are not wildlife biologists is ridiculous. Using your logic, if I buy a dozen eggs and notice that the carton is filled with 12 golf balls, I need to be an ornithologist before you'd consider me qualified to make a valid complaint.

Also Larry, as I have repeated, but failed to penetrate your thick thick head, I was not the only one who noticed that much of what you wrote in the Condor thread was not helpful to anyone but anti-lead ammo folks... except for upland game... other than doves. You sure as hell didn't do deer hunters who use lead bullets any favors.

You're doing a great job of ignoring me Larry. However, nothing you wrote changes my opinion of you. But I'll still be asking you to produce evidence of that false statement you made about me yesterday. All that writing, and you couldn't do that. You sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid just being a man and admitting you were wrong. No surprise there.



The older I get..... the less tolerant I am of hypocrites and fools.

Well Keith . . . not sure what "garbage" I call "science". I just got done explaining to you that regardless of whether you think the lead ban for waterfowl is "junk science", it is ACCEPTED SCIENCE and SETTLED LAW. It's been accepted by the people who banned lead as good science. Irrelevant whether you or I choose to accept it as such. You need irrefutable evidence to argue your case, unless you're only interested in making noise and accomplishing zilch.

Tell you what: It's now the 25th anniversary of the USFWS lead ban. Magazines like anniversaries. Why don't you put together everything you have and come up with a magazine article? Something like "25 Years Since the Lead Ban on Waterfowl: Did We Make a Mistake?" If I were you, before you did that, I'd find some waterfowl biologist--preferably an older guy who goes back to the lead ban days--and get their comments. See if they're "smart enough to digest" what you've come up with. Maybe get some helpful advise and/or criticism from someone who likely knows a bunch about it. Hey, maybe even more than you! Then offer your article to DU or Delta Waterfowl, or for that matter any magazine that covers waterfowl hunting. You never know. You might get paid for your efforts, and they'll receive a whole lot more attention than you trying to play tag with me here.

If there are "contrarians" out there on the lead ban, I don't know why you're having so much trouble finding them. Back 20 years ago, when the USFWS reduced the bag limit and shortened the season on woodcock, it took me all of 5 minutes to get a contrarian view--from the Chief of Wildlife with the Iowa DNR. Pretty heavy hitter in the wildlife management community. I asked for his opinion. He told me that there was no evidence hunting was the cause of the declining woodcock population, and that by reducing the bag limit and shortening the season, the feds were essentially putting the blame on hunting rather than looking elsewhere. That's how easy it can be to find contrary views . . . IF you develop contacts in the wildlife management community, and IF you don't approach them like they're the enemy.

So there you have my suggestions for you, along with an example of how it can work. I'm out of advice for you, and I'm done playing tag with you. I'm now contacting Dave and asking him to lock my thread on the Richland 909, and to take a look at this one as well and consider locking it. Your personal issues with me are a very poor reason to interrupt discussions on other topics.

Larry people get tired of reading your crap....fact is I've never read one of your posts in entirety because you talk some crAzy dribbly chit.

Morn'in Larry. Did you mention to the fellow that woodcock was an upland bird and you like to hunt them now and then? Did he know that deer hunters who recognized unwarranted blame, must turn to politicians for help, not wildlife heavy hitters for good science? Why would you contact Dave for something that's hiding in plain sight?

Littered on gravel town and logging roads I've found more 3" .410 empties marked #4 than just about anything else. And you can find the factory loads in just about any small town mom and pop convenience.

I didn't get it. An old friend with a 37A .410 explained it. Single shot "full" .410s make effective low-recoil partridge ground-swatters and, evidently, #4s provide the greatest reach. Never tried #4s but it makes sense. 3" #6s show adequate core density a good 5-10 yds farther out than #7.5s through a full M-42.

Samuel, you're right about the .410's in the little convenience stores. The one in the UP where I get my Michigan nonresident license every year (actually a Holiday station) also always has some 16's--but I've never seen 28's. You don't want to be without your own supply of them in the more remote places.

I enjoy reading Larry Brown's posts and articles. I think he works at being informative. Hang in there, Larry. The 'BBS patrol' are all ganging up on you, and brow beating you. It's the same reason a lot of good ones (eg, Dig Hadoke) have dropped this thing. They got sick of this sort of garbage.

Hey buzz, is this the kind of stuff you are talking about? Remember when you said this about Larry's older brother King Brown?



I wonder if Larry will have any problems with your rude behavior?

See what I mean when I said yesterday that the older I get--- the less tolerant I am of hypocrites and fools?

Larry, I always felt that it was probably you who asked Dave to lock the Condor thread, because you couldn't take repeatedly getting caught in your B.S., selective editing, attempting to put words in people's mouths, and dodging legitimate questions that made you look silly. Now I have no doubt. I guess that is the crybaby's version of LastWord-itis.

In your PM that you sent to me this morning, you once again dodged and twisted to get away from what you had said about Audobon which led up to your selective editing. I never said that Audobon was anti-hunting or even neutral as you asserted in that PM. I only said that they had backed anti-lead ammo bans in California. You said they didn't and that you could find nothing to support my statement. As I have repeatedly said to you, it took me less than a minute to find multiple sources including one from Audobon's own website.

But you had felt the need to use selective editing in order to defend your position because you cannot admit to ever being wrong. In my opinion, it was more like deceptive editing, considering the disingenuous manner in which you attempt to make it go away. craigd busted you. Caught you red handed with your hand in the cookie jar. Yet you act like a child in denial with the partially eaten cookie in your hand.

I also told you probably a dozen times now that I have found contrarian science and studies that effectively refute the junk that supported the 1991 ban. But I also told you that you are not ready for it and that I really don't care to discuss it with someone as disingenuous as you anyway. The fact that you keep asking is proof that you cannot comprehend simple English. I also told you not to bother sending me any more PM's Larry, but you are too desperate to listen.

And here is how you ended your PM to me this morning... you dumped another load of pure crap and said to not bother responding to you. Then this:



Which is fine, because I had already told you a couple times that I didn't want any PM's from you and that you could say anything you had to say to me in the open BBS where everyone could see how you operate.

The only reason I am posting comments aimed at you is because you made a dishonest and false assertion about me. You will do anything to avoid admitting you were wrong and apologizing for lying about me. I told you I would continue to remind you that you made that false accusation... and I will.

So go on now and cry to Dave. This is precious. I see it as the adult equivalent of hiding behind Mommy's apron.

I just read Dave Weber's comments in the now locked Richland 909 thread. My first instinct was to come back here and delete my previous post and just let Larry off the hook for posting false statements about me, and for continuing to subvert reality in order to divert attention from his disingenuous behavior.

Then I decided to instead post this portion of Larry's second PM to me after I had told him that I did not wish to have any off-forum discussions with him;



That comment right there was why I made a couple subsequent posts telling Larry he had his head up his posterior. I was hoping one of the usual hypocrite suspects would take me to task for it so I could show them how Larry operates in the shadows.
For the record, this was Larry trying to rewrite history. The NSSF was not even mentioned until much later in the Condor thread after Larry had repeatedly used the original data about lead bullet fragments in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison to support his assertions about deer hunters being a big cause of lead poisoning in eagles. Nor did I read anything into the NRA letter I posted a link to. Also, I later gave Larry a link to the entire North Dakota study which in fact was 31 pages long including all of the methods, charts, tables, data, references, etc.

But for that, I get Larry pretending here to be a decent guy, and then sending me nasty harassing PM's telling me I have my head up my ass, after I told him not to contact me other than in the open forum.

So Dave, you can banish me if you think that's best. As you tell us, it's your sandbox. But I'm kinda hoping you'll first ask yourself if perhaps Larry brings things upon himself, and then runs to you for cover like a crybaby when someone like me refuses to let him get away with his B.S. Larry's got over 17,500 posts on this other BBS where he is equally arrogant-- http://www.notssmbbs.com/ so maybe he should just hide out there for a while if he can't take some heat which he brought on himself here. Your call. Thanks.

The effectiveness of #4 lead shot, comparing steel to lead etc . . . WAS a good topic. Lots of folks able to comment based on facts like down range velocity, personal experience, etc. I think those are the kinds of discussions most of us prefer.

You know Keith, I think it's amazing how much time you must waste searching this internet site to find old statements of the past which you believe support the fact that you aren't the only [censored] on this forum. You know what, stick it man. I am sure some others here are sick of your pathological attacks too. You really relish picking on people...if it's not nca, then it's Larry Brown, then it's me. Don't you have anything better to do? I'm done with this BS.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh Buzz?




It is B.S., and your comment is as dishonest and hypocritical as anything I've ever seen. Larry made a totally false statement about me a couple days ago. I nicely asked him to either prove that statement or retract and apologize. He could do neither, and you are perfectly OK with stuff like that. Funny you should mention nca225. I never gave a crap what he said about me, and mud flew both ways. But you are defending a person who posted vile filthy comments about my daughters. Even then, I never cried to Dave Weber. I handled it in my own way, and still have not forgiven or forgotten his filthy comments that he repeated and said he was glad he made. You sure know how to pick em'. Guys like you and Larry preach civility and staying on topic, but just hate it if I remind you that you do the same. And to you, that makes me the [censored]. What a joke.




Getting back on topic, I think this hunter might have made a clean kill if he had used #4 lead shot...

Shooting Liberals- Bloom County-

How many times have you copied and pasted that statement I made now, Keith? Several and since you keep posting it, I have to rescind my commitment to be done with this BS. Well, I admit I made that statement. However, since then, I have had congenial conversation with King and we have even discussed doing some fishing in Nova Scotia. So, not everything you dig up and see here is really as it seems. And since YOU gave me the finger, I say the same back to you. Also, I read your appeal to Dave re kicking you off, so it's pretty clear you feel vulnerable. I for one am hopeful you get a mandatory vacation. It would be good for this website being rid of you. Now, I am done with this BS. Go ahead, get the last word.....

If I felt vulnerable Buzz, I would have deleted my earlier posts. If Dave wishes to give me the boot while giving a pass to guys like you, Larry, the anti-gun Trolls King Brown and Ed Good, and especially your little buddy nca225, then so be it.

I have no doubt that you are now congenial with King. There are only a handful of (censored) who will go to bat for nca225, so you two are birds of a feather. I chose that quote you made intentionally, because I felt it killed two hypocritical birds with one stone. Next time, if there's a next time, I'll use something else you said.

Who knows, maybe I'll come back under a new name like Alvin Linden who is now posting as gunluvr... a young college GIRL who also posted on Memorial day last year about being a combat veteran and about enjoying his WIFE'S coffee. Or not. Or maybe I'll get banned for a while and come back and behave even worse like Ed Good. Yeah, we have some real frauds and hypocrites here, and someone like you must feel right at home. BTW, there was NOTHING about #4 lead shot in your post. Larry must be furious.

If I have to go, I want it to be just like this Buzz... telling the truth about guys like you.

Nine pages of this? Surely we could have solved 4s vs 6s some other way.

Perhaps all the questions we ask should have multiple choice answers like in high school😊. Then we would not have to listen to off the point answers.
example: Do you like #4 shot? ----yes, ------no

It'd be half the length, if that, if all the posts were on topic.

Buzz, it can be difficult. But the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. They know they can't start a thread about what a bad guy you are (or I am) and have it pass muster with Dave, so they always jump into discussions where they have zip to contribute. That's the best they can do, which is pretty pathetic.

Pathetic is the correct word. They can't help it. Ignore the mean and mischievous. Don't feed their ignorance.

I think it would've been much less than half the length. Not only do things stray off topic, but they can get quite repetitive. How would you recommend commenting in an acceptable way if there're differing opinions? I guess I should add, without being labeled.

I correspond and relate every day with people who think differently from me, craig. Respectfully. Nothing wrong with different opinions. I correspond privately and on the board with members in the same way as I do with anyone else. I don't have to know their politics, colour or religion to have a conversation of what I believe or speculate or act to change things. Labelling is unintelligent.

PS: Members would know from years here that I'm a gregarious guy. I talk to people on street corners while waiting for the light to change. I go through life cheerfully as a barefoot boy with cheeks of tan, as I started in a fishing village, because it works for me. I avoid growly, unhappy guys generally because they always have axes to grind. Life should be wonderment, miracles and magic, trying to live to high standard of human values.

I believe members here are the same way, get a big kick out of RWTF, for instance, and would love to look at his books. I don't know his politics, colour or religion---and it doesn't matter. It's easy to separate men from the mean.

Not only is it unintelligent, apparently it's pathetic. But, I respect if others feel the same way.

Say someone's strolling down mainstreet doublegunshop, never even stopped at the corner thread, just looking, minding their own business. Is it okay to have a differing opinion with the growly axe grinder when called on by name? Though opinions differ, I appreciate your approach and contribution.

Sure, it's okay to engage respectfully with growly or benign if asked by name, as long as you're not being given the finger at the same time.

Humans are complicated to the point they can't be labelled, their character and values classified accurately in a file. I'm against capital punishment, for abortion with conditions, a pacifist who doesn't believe in peace at any price.

I don't believe compromise is betrayal. I compromise with family, friends and publics every day, and believe I'm a better person in a better place for it. I don't know anyone who gets their own way---all the time.

Well now. I see I can still log-in, so I must not have been banished. I can only hope the reason is that Dave Weber is getting a bit fed up with crybabies and hypocrites too.

Since I last posted, we have Larry Brown commenting that this thread would have only been half of its' length had all of the posts been on topic.

However, that post by Larry was equally off topic, and so were all three posts made by his older brother King Brown. Actually, none of the posts since I was here yesterday was on topic. Yet strangely, Larry has no problem with that! It makes you think... if you actually have the ability to think instead of jumping to hypocritical and incorrect conclusions based upon personal differences. Right Buzz?

King Brown's comments were typical of what I've come to expect from him. These two in particular:





Um, I think King has himself once again engaged in labelling. Or labeling.

"Pathetic". "Mean". "Mischievous". "Ignorance". "Unintelligent". If that is not labeling, just what the hell is it? But King has labeled me similarly, and worse, countless times, yet he would never consider himself unintelligent or hypocritical or intellectually dishonest.

I happily admit that I myself have labeled King as Anti-Gun, Anti-2nd Amendment, Anti-NRA, etc., and I have provided dozens of quotes of his own words to back up my opinions of him. I understand why King doesn't like me, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I have reminded King many times that "Dishonesty is not Civility." His intellectual dishonesty is also disrespectful to everyone here. And his younger brother Larry will never admonish King for being off-topic. What conclusions can we draw from this??? Hmmmm.

One little thing that has dragged this thread out, and into off topic-land is this false accusation made about me by Larry Brown:



Right after he made this false comment on 2/28/16, I said, "Please show us where I ever held up either my observations, or my opinions for that matter-- as good science." I promised Larry I would continue to ask him to either show us proof, or that he should retract it, admit he lied about me, and apologize.

Larry would rather drag this into eternity and cry like a baby to Dave Weber to grant him cover than to ever admit he was wrong. I knew that's what would happen, and I was willing to risk getting banned from this BBS to make my point.

From the header: "The rules are really simple: Stay on the subject matter . . . "

Some people have trouble reading very short and to the point rules, I guess.

Anyone who wants to start a topic on another subject, in which they can express opinions related to that subject, is certainly free to do so. And solicit comments on that subject from anyone who chooses to participate.

Are you saying that about me Larry, or are you saying it about you and your older brother King? Why do you expect me to abide by the same rules that you and King regularly break?

The rules also say "you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false" You and King are both guilty of that.

Don't lecture me about the rules when you yourself violate them Larry. You have needlessly dragged this out by your refusal to retract and apologize for posting false information about me.

Next time you cry to Dave, why don't you throw a tantrum and threaten to leave. Perhaps you could try one of those histrionic farewell threads like Last Dollar did complaining about civility shortly after he called JamesM (formerly Italiansxs) a WOP. Maybe that will make enough noise to make him forget that you create your own problems, and then expect him to bail you out. Grow up man. I did briefly consider notifying Dave that Ed Good has recently been engaging in Trolling in the Second Amendment Informational Thread, but I couldn't lower myself to becoming a squealing little rat.

Speaking of rats, I think #4 lead shot would be overkill for them.

Somehow I just no longer care what the effectiveness of #4 shot might be...Geo

Geo -- Maybe this is why 5s have a cult following . Have a better day all.

eYe love #4's....they're my favorite shot size.

Rules require no lecturing. They're posted, and they're clear. A third grader can understand "stay on topic", although it may require a correction or two from the teacher. "Knowingly false", on the other hand, is open for interpretation. Kinda like "debunking" and "junk science". But if you want any substantive response from me for anything concerning lead and wildlife, lead and humans, the "proof" that the lead ban on waterfowl is based on "junk science", then you'll have to start a new thread with that as a topic.

It seems we've run the course on the topic everyone--including you, Keith--was supposed to stay on. That being said, I bid this topic farewell.

You sure have a funny way of ignoring me Larry. It's a real hoot watching the lengths you will go to in order to discredit me rather than just acting like a man and admitting you were wrong. I see you still can't back up the absolutely false statement you made about me on 2/28/16. Nor have you compared your older brother King to a third grader for his decidedly off topic-remarks and hypocritical and insulting labeling.



So here you are once again violating the same precious rules that you repeatedly lecture me about. Nothing in your recent posts here has been on-topic.

Furthermore, nothing in these two posts you made in the "DUmagazine article FUBAR" thread was remotely on-topic either. RWTF wasn't asking for a bio on Phil Bourjaily:





I don't care to have any discussions about lead or junk science or anything else with you. Hypocrisy, deceptive personal attacks, and sidestepping is not my idea of a substantive response. In my opinion, you are not worthy or worth the time.

You said that a third grader could understand the rules about staying on-topic... a rule that you are attempting to hide behind, and a rule that you break as often as anyone. A third grader Larry! Your words Larry.

So where does that leave you?