doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - Second barrel on grouse

Does anyone take a second shot at grouse? I don't hunt grouse (they don't live near here) but have long wondered if the second shot is useful. From hunting stories I read, it seems that the bird takes off through the trees like a rocket and one is fortunate to get a single hurried shot.

"Tap" Tappley, who wrote the "Tap's Tips" column for Field and Stream for many years bought his son a Savage 220 hammerless single shot 20 ga. for grouse hunting. Is it possible that that a quick, light single shot is the ideal grouse gun?

Beg to differ.

I knew a guy who lived in an assisted living facility in Pine County, MN. His place was close to some good grouse hunting spots. He didn’t really need too much assistance, and lived on the side where they just checked on you in the morning. He was in his 90s, had fought in Europe in the second big war, and was on his way to the Far East when he got the word the war had ended. He had fought like hell to keep his pickup and his .410 single shot, at the home. I would see him walking the Munger Trail on warm afternoons, where he would sneak along, and take a Grouse or two that he came upon. The trail is a mile in and a mile out at that spot, and the grouse he took would either be on the ground, or in a tree. He told me he hadn’t shot one on the wing since Nixon was in office.

That guy can shoot them any way he finds them. I still try to take them on the wing.

But, when I grow up, I want to be just like him.

Best,
Ted

I hunt for my own reasons, but success is measured by actually killing something to eat. "Necessary or sporting" is determined by me and me alone thank you. I take the shots that are offered and have ground-sluiced so-many grouse by this point that it's beyond counting now and yes, they are very tasty.

In a perfect world, every game bird would be harvested over a pointing dog. But, but as a practical matter... that can't happen. What lies in-between may be imperfect but it is reality, and that is either as good or as bad as you wish to make it. As long as the game laws are observed and safety is paramount then what each individual hunter choses is entirely up to him (or her). The judgments or pronouncements of others be damned. I have always maintained that hunting is the last great "illusion of freedom" because for a few short and precious moments, you cast-off the mantle of civilization and become immersed in the food chain as a predator. Everything else falls away and it's you, hopefully... a fine weapon, and the day ahead of you. Be it a rifle or a shotgun, it has effectively been my salvation now for the entirety of my life and I await every Fall with an eagerness that few other pursuits can generate. Each season is either "good" or "bad" depending on how you perceive it, but I pray that I am able to do this for the remainder of my time here, much like the old man in Ted's story.

More than a century ago, organized shoots involved bird handlers releasing quail or pheasants from a cage by sliding an end panel up (also called a sluice, named after irrigation sluice gates) to release the birds to a waiting shooter. When the sluice was lifted, the birds ran out. If the shooter shot before they took flight it was considered a shameful act.

Today, some shooters consider the shooting of a game bird on the ground a shameful act. Likely an uneducated throwback to the late 1800's. For today's hunters who walk 5+ miles looking for a grouse and who traverse every type of brush, tag alder, black berry brush, etc...while ready to take aim, it is a very different experience. These hunters may get a shot or may not during the entire hunt. If birds are flushed, they almost never flush into the open where a shot is afforded, rather they flush towards the thickest, nastiness and are usually out of sight before a hunter can lift his/her shotgun.

Don't disparage a real hunter who puts in sweat equity to earn a single chance at bringing home a grouse.

If you must ground swat a grouse or shoot a grouse sitting in a tree you should:

A. Be starving.

B. Shoot them in the head w/a Colt Woodsman or S&W Kit Gun.

Otherwise it is simply not sporting or necessary.

Assuming all game laws are obeyed, the game is respected and safety is set as the highest priority... the rest of hunting involves a lot of personal choices. Blanket statements to suggest one's own opinion is the only correct ethical standard should be avoided outside the circle of pre-screened supporters. Lest someone pick at the statement and start questioning things like shooting .22's into trees on public hunting grounds. Because then you're into qualifying and explaining statements that were supposed to end as a mic drop. lol

Road hunting or ground sluicing game birds is much more ethical than pretending to support gun rights, and then voting for known anti-gun Democrats. But a number of Liberals here are able to justify such irrational behavior without ever pressing their political choices to respect the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens.

I want to shoot my grouse on the wing in a fair chase hunt. And there have been many times I did exactly that while carrying a single shot 20 gauge Savage model 220. It was not ideal for the job, but that was mostly due to being very tightly choked. But I'd rather see a grouse shot on the ground and subsequently eaten, versus seeing such things as sky-busting, or not making every reasonable attempt to recover shot or wounded game. And I'd never be goofy enough to support a politician who came right out and actually promised to infringe upon our gun rights, as has become common for many Democrats. Ethics and making good choices are often related to intelligence, or the lack thereof.