'Most', or 'Average' hunters take quite a beating on threads concerning choke selection and usage thereof.

I don't hunt that much. When I do, I do OK.

All the target shooting on an annual basis doesn't hurt, but I don't set the world afire in the field. I'm at least in the 'competent' category, but I do my share of missing.

The folks I hunt with do OK too. They don't practice near as much as I do, but I don't see gross incompetence or the inability to use a full choke when conditions require.

What are your observations?

Do 'average' hunters suck as badly as some people seem to indicate?

Yes. Rifle users worse. My buddy and I mounted scopes and sighted in rifles for decades. Few customers had an inkling of trajectory. We're a sorry bunch.

most of us are recreational hunters not obsessed Olympian hopefuls.

In my case, I can account for myself quite well 'most of the time', but I struggle on the highest incoming birds, not through any deficiency in gun, choke or cartridge, but because I find it quite hard to give sufficient swing/lead. A crosser at the same height - and I'm in with a good chance, but a straight incomer frequently defeats me. I suspect part of the problem is a rather stiff back from a combination of years and 'mistreatment' (e.g. poor lifting technique of heavy items etc by me) over many years. The trick is to take it very early, but as we all know, its easier said than done!

"Punch" (London) 1910

First Dog (hired for the season). "That's the fifteenth time running he's missed."
Second Dog. "None too safe either; let's chuck it."




In 1918 “Badminton Magazine” said that a man might consider himself a good shot who killed 40% of the birds he fired at. Lord Walsingham reduced this to 30%. Judging from typical game books of the time, these assessments in many cases were very generous.

My game shooting vastly improved when I got a good dog.

JohnfromUK... a couple things to consider on the incoming bird. If it's going to be truly overhead, the longer you wait the easier the shot is! This assumes that you can indeed swing the gun to a high elevation, but if you wait until it's near overhead the gun has a maximum amount of built in lead. They're also closer at that point, and they have a bigger profile.

Shotguns have built in vertical lead at high elevations. Look at the angle made by the bore and the rib. This is to compensate for drop caused by gravity.

When shooting overhead, that need disappears.

The real trick is to swing from behind, overtake, and as soon as the bird disappears from view (covered with muzzle), shoot and keep swinging.

If you see the bird when you pull the trigger, you've missed behind. If the barrels block the view you're in front and you have a chance.

It's my favorite target.

All shooters have almost a universal lack of range estimation ability. Everyone should be able to kill game within 20-25 yards. If not hunting is not for you. Most people drop off very quickly beyond that point. Have you measured 35, 40 or 45 yards and then seen how small a bird looks at those distances? Different backgrounds make ranges even harder to judge. If you can correctly figure the range to within two to four yards you can then figure out the correct amount of lead. If not you are just spot shooting and any long range shots are pure luck.

Just like most 250 yard deer shots pace off to only 175 or so yards most 40 plus yard shot shrink when measured. Worse is that many figure it from where the bird is recovered which may be a long ways from where shot. Range is a tricky thing to some and a real mystery to others.

Nash Buckingham wrote that practice on game was the only way to become a really competent game shot and that with the reduced opportunity today we could never expect to develop the competency of shooters from another time. Maybe so, but he had no idea about Argentina!

I went to SA every year for many years beginning back in the '80s. Whenever I'd return and dove season arrived in GA I practically could not miss a bird. Now I've returned to my "normal" degree of expertise and am streaky, subject to slumps, and occasionally brilliant on the dove field.

Tragically my brilliant days are not as much noticed as my poor days...Geo

I'm a pretty fair game shot on upland birds. I've found that fatigue really causes my shooting to drop off, for example after strenuously climbing a hill and I'm out of breath, I might as well throw rocks. And I'm not even going to mention what a HO will do.....

First, I have to second the preceding comments about run of the mill rifle shooters and range estimation. I belonged to a private club and was continually appalled at people who would show up at the range the week before a hunt, throw no more than five rounds downrange and, if they could see the shots on paper, all was good. In the field, anything that is visible in the scope is a good shot. I hear eastern deer hunters saying their rifle is sighed in for 200-300 years (Really?) Shotgun in hand, the tendency is to point the thing and wait for the bird to intersect the line of sight. That's the great unwashed mass. There are also some who are very proficient, scary good, even, but they are the minority.

People that normally bird hunt, but who don't practice much, usually seem to me to do surprisingly well and I have to wonder how good they would be if they did practice. Among them I consider myself perhaps marginally more competent, but they often express amazement at my shooting. It makes me wonder what the margin is between average and good wing shooting is.

I am about 40% on grouse and about 60% on woodcock.

Target shooters are golfers with guns.

I used to be a very good shot, one season I killed the first 23 ducks I shot at. After my cataract surgery the first season I missed the first 17 in a row and had to give up International Skeet. Since then I've concentrated on hunting skills and have learned to pass on shots that are out of my network. I find that now I'm very good if I can get them inside twenty yards and pick my hunting places and shots to assure conditions that a favorable to my ability. I've learned my shortcomings and have adapted. Suprisingly my numbers of birds haven't fallen very much and I have to eat a lot during the season to stay in my possession limit. I still shoot skeet from the low gun and stay in the twenties on am American skeet field but it has been a long time since a 25 straight.

Shotgunjones - Thanks for that - your technique is indeed what I 'try' to do ...... and it does work ..... for medium height birds. I still find that I really struggle with the high ones. I know from when I have shot similar height birds as crossers, they need a LOT more lead (compared to medium height birds) - and that's what I find defeats me on the really high incomers. (its the same on clays).

Fore!

Back in 2006 I wasn’t a bad shot, especially on upland game birds. Then the doctors in Chicago ran out of treatment options for my wife’s cancer so, on their counsel, we moved to Texas and MD Anderson Cancer Hospital. After arriving in Texas both my target shooting and hunting dropped off dramatically, I had too many other things on my mind. It wasn’t until late 2011, about 6 months after my wife passed away, that I finally went hunting again, thanks to some kind hearted members of this board. Nobody commented but I will, my shooting was terrible! However, along with rebuilding the train wreck that my life had become, I’ve been slowly climbing back up the learning curve practicing on clays and this season missing shots on quail. I’m hoping I’ll finally be prepared by next hunting season.

Steve

Re incomers, one problem is that if you wait too long, you run out of swing. Another is that, especially with a sxs, the bird can end up hidden under the barrels if it's a straight incomer. If you're swinging through, pulling the trigger about the time it disappears should give appropriate forward allowance. But there's a hard to get past tendency to stop the gun when you no longer see the bird.

How well do hunters shoot? Of the 20,000-odd hunters Tom Roster has run through his CONSEP program, something like 2/3 of them can't hit 3 or 4 out of 8 crossing clays at 20 yards. Which means that if you're a pretty mediocre skeet shooter, you're better than that.

Well, that may indeed be true but, all I have to say about that is, shame on them. Daddy drilled into me as a kid that "Anything worth doing is worth doing well". That includes killing birds with a shotgun, in my book.

SRH

Quality practice and keeping the ole head screwed on straight, I doubt would ever be a bad thing. But, I think there's so much more to hunting than kill stats. If it were a hundred percent game, I wouldn't bother with it. I think it's really special to be on a good streak, mostly because it won't last.

Shooting wise it comes and goes, sometimes I'm hot and sometimes it's a crying shame. But I don't mind, because for a hunter shooting is a pretty small part of hunting. There's dog training and maintenance. Studying animal behavior and habitat, studying terraign, weather and game reports, scouting. Keeping your truck properly cared for and equiped. Finding a place to hunt. There are hunters, there are shooters and there are shooters that call themselves hunters.

I have at times forgotten my shotgun because of so many other things to mind and still had a good hunt.

I think the increasing popularity of "Sporting Clays" has somewhat improved this situation. I see a lot of younger shooter on the SC courses.

On preserve bird (easy shooting) 90-100%, but i do have days i shoot 50%

On wild game 70-80% over the last three seasons

Still not nearly as good as some i have hunted around, but better than most

That said i cannot state with any level of fact how good or bad a shot the general population is or is not.

Practice, experience, and more practice yields quality performance, i do not know how much others have or have not. I find i shot better when i don't think about than when i do.

I must admit that i shot better up close (25 yards and less) than long range 40 yards and beyond, to the extent that i simply defer and do not shoot long range very often if at all on long birds. Then again a string of good dogs has made it easy to chose close shots.

I would attribute that to the Lake Woebegone effect. Those posters and their hunting buddies are all above-average - everyone else, not so much.

Shooting clay targets is like going to the driving range - it will help a lot, but it is no replacement for the real thing. If I played golf as well as I hit balls at the range . . . .

Some, few, shooters are "experts" without any practice, at least in their own minds. Some get better with age and some decline. Practice takes you far but talent is still needed. No amount of practice can make a untalented person into a superb shot but it can make you into a decent one. My father was once a great shot but age took it almost all away.

The last time I got my father to go hunting he was 86 almost 87 years old. Reflexes had been gone for decades as he put it and his eye sight is limited to his right eye. I coaxed him for one last trip with the use of a Fox 16 A grade I had just bought. Having a lifelong soft spot for 16's in general he liked it very much and agreed to try one more time.

I set him up in a shady area of the dove field, off towards one end, so he could be more or less by himself and not worry about others watching him shoot. Trust me, if lucky we will all get there someday. He walked the area for a few minutes figuring out where birds could be found easily and where they would be lost for all time. Then he went and cut four small saplings and walked from his seat 40 paces, which for a old man was about 30-32 yards I figured and planted them as known distance markers. He knew his range estimation ability was gone with just one eye and his lack of shooting in recent years so he made an accommodation.

Then he just sat there for about an hour and watched the birds fly. Watched where they came from and how they moved. I did not think he was going to shoot, sometimes you just are done shooting. Finally he loaded his gun. The birds were steady but not in vast numbers that day so he shot singles and then went and retrieved them. He got his limit of 15 birds with 23 shells.

I will have that day in my memory forever and hope for years of shooting under proper conditions. Match you abilities and conditions for best results. The gun he used has not been shot since that day but will remain in my gun room for the rest of my life.

When you hear experts brag about stuff just nod like I do when my wife is talking. It does not cost much and will end the lecture faster. Do not point out their flaws or ask for a demonstration of their abilities. But given the chance let them shoot first or best on the other end of the field.

Nice story Jon. That kinda made my day.... thanks for telling it.

I think if I saw more birds I'd be a much better shot. I'm fine as long as I don't pull the trigger(s) until the gun is fully mounted.

But a big reason I hate missing is the awful feeling that I've let down my dog. Seriously, there was one instance I can think of (there are many more) where my dog worked a rooster for nearly a half hour. The last 15+ minutes they were in a cornfield to my left. I was right on the edge of it. Every once in awhile I'd hear his bell for a couple seconds. The rooster had obviously walked through a row or 3 trying to escape on foot and my dog stayed right with him. He NEVER gave in to temptation and just muckled him. Always stayed with him. The tension was unbelievable!

Finally the rooster came bursting out of the cornfield and I had a perfect set-up which I completely blew just as my dog came out of the corn to see. It was so hard to look him in the eye! I swear, that feeling is the biggest incentive to start shooting some clays just to keep somewhat in shape. I mean, just firing a shotgun during hunting seasons alone is fairly stupid, let's face it.

If I can get the birds to all fly right to left I look like a world class shooter. Thought seriously about ignoring the others! There is a significant difference between shooting skeet and clays, with a pre-mounted gun especially, and live birds. Clays start fast and lose speed during their flight. Live birds are accelerating the whole time and actually fly much faster than clays. I am able to focus intensely on birds - much more than clays. Think it is probably the adrenaline bump I get with birds. I have had a few days where I went 12 for 12 on Huns and on Gambels quail. One Stellar day was 12 for 12- all doubles on Huns and there were no easy ones in the bunch. I can not shoot a 12ga - bock on the trigger frequently. Always shoot 20ga 3/4Oz loads or 16ga 7/8oz loads to prevent further damage to my recoil issues. Especially good with a 20ga Parker VHE on birds.

I host a fair number of Uplanders every year. I have for most of a couple of decades. We mostly hunt private grounds and between grounds lightly hunted, their dogs and mine, they have opportunity on more roosters than most of them are accustomed to seeing in the few days they get to hunt each year.

My observations is that like their dogs, they have opportunity at too few birds to really achieve their natural potential. Casual hunters, dog or man, just do not hunt the way those who pound cover for months each year.

That so many do not game shoot as well as they would like isn't really surprising, or at least so I think.

While I tend to agree, Stan . . . how many weekend golfers are really good? Bowlers? For most people, getting really good at any activity requires a fairly significant commitment of time, effort, and money. Most people, regardless of the activity in question, come up short on at least one of those three. Often more than one.

Desire is the biggest factor, Larry. "Want to". Daddy instilled that in me, I guess, the desire to always do my best. This has nothing to do with natural ability. I grew up shooting doves with men of means, shoots with 30-40 guns. These men could afford to shoot all they wanted, and some shot doves a lot. If I was put on a decent stand I would be high man on the field, or the first to kill my limit, and almost always had the highest bird/shell ratio, before I could drive a car. Daddy bought my shells in those days, and always admonished me, "Just don't waste 'em". Wasting, to me, came to mean missing. I worked hard at not missing even as a kid.

I have employed a fair number of men in my business, over the years. Give me one with the desire to work, over a man with ability and lack of motivation, anytime. If he wants it, he can learn what he needs to know. Desire can overcome a lack of time or money, but not a lack of effort. That has to come from within. It's just hard for me to understand how people can enjoy shooting under 15%, which is said to be the national average for doves. Every time you miss, you failed, in a sense, failed to do what you tried to do. I don't mean to sound elitist, I certainly have nothing to be elitist about, but I am constantly trying to improve.

No one will ever reach perfection at shooting flying. For that I am grateful. But, why not work at being better instead of settling for "also ran"?

SRH

Stan, my Dad never admonished me about wasting. Instead he took a different approach........he made me buy my own. On my limited budget I quickly figured out the wasting part.

Most dove hunters live in town. Most of them have demanding jobs, demanding wives, children particpating in sports events, and generally demanding lives. Once a year they get their shotgun out, wipe off the dust, grab five boxes of shells and their hunting license at WalMart and go dove hunting. Unless he is a natural I would expect something like five or six shots per bird.

For most, dove hunting is about camaraderie and a temporary parole from the Gulag. I spent over a decade in that Gulag. I am sure glad my sentence is over. I have sympathy for those still interned.

I'd consider that "World Class" talent on grouse, if an accurate calculation. At least for hunting mountain terrain. Most of the people hunting flat ground over in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota have no idea how easy their lives are compared to the rest of us.

Shotgun shooting is an Art. Rifle shooting is a Science and Pistol shooting is a Skill. All are improved with practice.

The person I like to see is the one who shoots Sportingly; and safely of course. That is taking the birds within range and not shooting unless he or she has a fair chance of a clean kill with the right combination of gun and cartridge. The one who says that they can consistently kill birds with a 20 bore at 60 yards; and you do hear them, are either lying or considerably over estimating range. And the one who shoots deer out to 500 yards doesn't deserve to own a rifle.

I pick up with dogs at a number of driven shoots. That entails standing behind the line of guns by a couple of hundred yards or so and collecting the birds, starting with any runners and then moving forwards after the drive is over. I see a lot of shooters. There are the ones who work on the assumption that they have paid for the day and they are going to fire as many shots as possible. They will shoot out of range and at birds far too close that should be left. There are the ones who shouldn't really shoot at live game until they have reached a reasonable level of consistency on clays first. If those type are in the line me and the dogs have to work our socks off trying to retrieve runners that have dropped down and legged it or are still capable of short flights. Silly thing is they think that they have shot well because the bird has been bagged. No, they are lousy shots who are fortunate to have two good dogs standing behind!

There is one shoot I go to that has a woman in the line up (not being sexist it is just that this one happens to be female), the pheasant comes perfectly 30 yards up and straight as a die. A perfect shot to be taken just before the apex of flight but no, she always waits, turns round and blasts it up the bum at 50 yards with her trap gun. Never a clean kill it just shudders and drops one or both legs and comes down in a heap and then goes for cover as best it can. Dogs retrieve it even though it has glided on for ages. Everyone else tells her she is a good shot as the bird is bagged.

We all miss of course but to pick up behind a good team of Guns is a pleasure. Birds either killed clean or clean missed and all shots within the proper range perameters. On those shoots there may only be one or two runners that drop back. And what's more I and the dogs aren't worn out either. Lagopus.....

I experienced a real eye-opener while attending our local rifle range's sight-in days for deer season. I am not exaggerating when I say that less than 20% of the dozens of guys I saw are adequate shots; less than 10% are good and I'd like to see about 30% of them stay home. WAY TOO MANY guys throw 5 rounds downrange as was previously mentioned, and upon seeing their pumpkin-sized group, would declare "close enough for deer"...

I am 100% behind personal liberty, but would like to see marksmanship requirements for license purchase, for big game.

I'm of the opinion similar to Stan's, but not exactly the same. I say: Anything worth enjoying, is worth doing.

I'd put my shooting at fair.

Seems to me desire without the means to support it won't get you anywhere. You can have all the desire in the world, but if you're working your butt off to support yourself (not to mention maybe a family), there's not enough left over--neither time nor money--to devote to a hobby to get really good at it. Unless maybe you live next to a football field and your desire is to become an NFL placekicker. Free access to the field, a ball and a tee, and you can work on it to your heart's content. But shells and reloading supplies have gotten more expensive. Targets have gotten more expensive. Gas, to get you to the range, costs almost twice now what it did when Bush left office. And a lot of people in the current economy count themselves lucky if they're just spinning their wheels and not seeing their income go down.

Well, maybe Obamacare will save folks enough on insurance that they can afford to shoot more.

The ones who complain, "I can't afford the practice" don't have the determination to see it through anyway. History is replete with those, who had not the means, but who caddied, cut grass, bartered work for shooting, whatever it took to get to do what they loved, and who excelled. There is an unwillingness to give up in some people that transcends any and all material shortcomings. It's one of those things that, if it has to be explained to you, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

I will not mince words on this. Have your final say, Larry.

SRH

I hunt alone specifically because I don't want anyone else to see how poorly I shoot.

Maybe one little problem with determination is that it's going to be defined in different ways. I'm pretty sure there're folks that would say my effort is not good 'nuf, which doesn't bother me, at least right up to the point where they tell me I can't go hunting. I'd hope we're not thinking the US can afford to loose a bunch of hunters by shooing them away with more hoops to jump through.

I see many shotgunners who do OK. For them it's 30% to 50%. That really is just OK. But if that makes a guy happy, then I hope you have a lot of fun. Most shotgunners do pretty well and I'd be happy to have them join me in the woods and field. I find rifle shooters to be dreadful!! Especially the guys (majority of deer hunters) who dust off the rifle 2 days before the season opener, shoot a 12" group at 100 yards and then hit the woods and "spray and pray". Then they put the gun away until 2 days before the next season and wonder why they can't hit a bull's posterior with a snow shovel!!

I "wasted" my youth mainly shooting rimfire and centerfire rifles and for fun, would often times pick the heads off ruffed grouse, while deer hunting (never did elk hunting). I went though thousands of rounds of rimfire at ground squirrels and targets and mainly targets with centerfire.

My folks didn't give me money for my rimfire ammo needs, I would walk the highway picking up beer and pop bottles to sell to the store at 3 cents apiece to supply my 22 cal needs at 9 or 10 years old and mow lawns or other odd jobs later on for the same reason. Centerfire, I would reload from my dad's ample stock. My shooting ability has slipped as I've gotten older, my eyes have deteriorated and I shoot much less.

Concerning a shotgun, I got tired of embarrassing myself while upland hunting with friends so was determined to improve. I've spent the past 8-9 years during the off season shooting clays, which has helped me to become a fair upland shot, with still much room for improvement.

Stan has it spot on.

Two things I really wanted to do in life. I wanted to fly like Jimmy Stewart and shoot like John Wayne.

I well remember working in an underage sweat shop making $1.65/hour running a punch press in 10th grade. I saved enough working 5 hours a night for close to a year to buy enough lessons to pass first solo. When flying time is that dear, one does pay attention. There is no substitute for motivation. If you really want it, you can achieve it.

Fast forward a few years.... I had a flight student who was a shooter. He showed me his Browning broadway trap, and his Ljutic monogun. They were the most amazing things I had ever seen.... Eric was kind enough to provide some basic instruction and a couple cases of shells.

I have no actual talent at any of this... just desire and drive. It's better than all the money in the world. Know why? Because I did it myself.

Do average duck hunters suck you ask? I can't speak for their shooting skills but I have been able to observe over several decades that many have a lack of ability to estimate range, or they are just desperate.

Game shooting does not provide the opportunities to shoot enough to become proficient with a shotgun. Clay pigeons; Skeet, Trap and Sporting can provide the ability to learn to mount, evaluate the path of the target and make the move to hit it. Those games still can not provide the same experience as shooting a live bird. That is why I enjoy crow hunting, lots of inexpensive time in the field shooting a lot of live birds during a very long season. If one can kill 50 to 70 percent of the crows he fires at he is a good shot in my experience. One of the nice things about crow shooting is the ability to learn how to hit long shots with full choke as the use of full choke at close range is of no consequence as we are not shooting the birds to eat them.

Oddly enough one of the best wing shooters in the world is a crow hunter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cn6MEymVXk

I learned in 20 years of involvement (not behind the gun) with driven Pheasant and Partridge shooting in the UK that 'team wise' the best teams were about 2.5 'bangs per bird' - and the worst over 5 'bangs per bird'.
On an individual basis, I have seen one or two individuals who choose the best (highest birds that are still in range), but only take an 'marginal out of range' shot when a bird is already wounded by another shot manage 80% kills and more. Such people are rare to see and a joy to watch.

One individual (sadly now no longer with us) stands out. I have watched him give clean kills on bird after bird, mostly high challenging birds without a miss using 1 oz loads in 1920s (made for his Father) 12 bore featherweight Purdeys weighing just on 6 lbs.

Naturally in 20 years in the field, one sees all types from beginners to very experienced shots, and using all guns from the finest English names to some very budget examples, but the best shots are indeed memorable.

Doubled post, deleted duplicate.

No need to mince words, Stan. After all, you told us that you started out with Daddy buying your shells for you. How come you weren't carrying newspapers or cutting grass to buy them YOURSELF? Kinda gave you a leg up learning the game, didn't it?

Good shooting is certainly critical hunting, if for no other reason that we have an ethical obligation to take game humanely when we choose to hunt for sport. But there are a lot of other skills required to hunt effectively - good dog work, good scouting, shooting the right loads. For many (myself included, who is still serving time in AmarilloMike's Gulag), it is easier to go to the range and practice to become a reasonable shot than it is to put in time on quality dog training, scouting game, patterning loads. But knowing where to find game and knowing how to work with a good dog is as important as good shooting when it comes to putting game in the bag.

Rather a difficult situation for a farm boy to have a newspaper route or mow lawns when he had FARM work to do for his Dad.

And typically not paid for doing chores. That being said, when I grew up as a city kid in Iowa (50's, early 60's), it was fairly common for farm kids to earn spending money by running a trap line. Fur prices generally pretty good back then. And hunting was certainly cheap: walk out the door. Getting to a shooting range for practice might not have been convenient, although a hand trap and a box of clays behind the barn would have been possible and relatively inexpensive.

Maybe the shells Stan's Dad gave him were a thank you for some of the farm work he did........think about it.

I have guided duck and goose hunters for many years and most have no idea if they have actually hit the bird that drops but say they do. Almost all have pumps and semi's and fire all 3 shots at every flight. 3 birds come in 5 hunters unload and one will actually swear 'he' shot them all. I budget 3 boxes of shells for a limit of 8 birds per hunter. That's 10% success 'if' a limit is actually taken.

On the other hand, watching them makes me a much more patient shooter and my success rate is closer to 35 - 40%. But I do use an over and under and often wonder if my success would improve with a single shot.

Many people who are given an opportunity don't appreciate it, and waste their opportunity. I just had a thing about waste, and missing. I miss like everybody, but I have worked hard all my life to be a better shot. I began competitive shooting at Boy Scout camp at about age 11. Moved through all types of competitive shooting all my life. Sporting clays is the most humbling of them all. If that comment about my being given shells was meant to be a cut, it was lost. The fact that I had an advantage by being given some shells does not change what I said. Desire to do better is not hindered by lack of supplies. Those who want to get better do so, one way or another. Those who don't have the fire in their belly, don't do what it takes. Period.

SRH

Originally Posted By: L. Brown

No need to mince words, Stan. After all, you told us that you started out with Daddy buying your shells for you. How come you weren't carrying newspapers or cutting grass to buy them YOURSELF? Kinda gave you a leg up learning the game, didn't it?


How come a decent thread like this one always has to turn into a pissing match?? Geesh Larry lighten up!

Today I shot 36 Eurasian doves with 60 shells with my LC Smith 20ga. I think pretty good for dove shooting.

When a bird flushes and I don't have time to think, I just mount, swing and shoot, I shoot about twice as good as when my buddy tells me "the dogs on point, get over here, get ready", I stand and wait, anticipate, set my feet, plan the shot, swing, shoot and usually miss.

I guess I just shoot better when I don't think about it...golf was like that many years ago.

I gave up golf.

Talk to Stan, tunes. Seems a bit ironic, don't you think, that he talks about a "lack of supplies" not stopping anyone . . . yet he was GIVEN his supplies? Sorry, but I won't mince words either: Yes indeed, "minor" factors like the economy--among other things--do stand in the way of people becoming proficient at ANY activity that requires a fairly significant expenditure of funds. And learning to shoot well requires such an expenditure. Let's see . . . work my butt off to support my family. Left over time and money . . . spend time and some of that extra money with the wife and kids, or spend time and some of that extra money on guns, shooting lessons, shells, targets, gas to get me to the range, etc? The places I shoot, most of the people who shoot a lot are older. Kids, if any, away from home and no longer in college. Speaking of which, I put myself through college, came out with zero debt. That was then; this is now. Without a lot of scholarship support, what was fairly common when I was in college in the 60's is now close to impossible. Which means younger folks are saddled with college debt on top of everything else. Desire alone doesn't get it done--and it's way more expensive these days than it used to be.

Tunes,

Because L. Brown is a Motor Mouth Mental Midget of the first order and does not know when to SHUT UP......... He is full of SELF WORTH and cannot see the forest for the trees...

It is sad that Stan and others have to put up with this fool.... Most on this board pay zero attention to this motor mouths ramblings.

Doug, Stan, as a land owner and man who farmed for 34 years it gives me great delight to see guys with his attitude who want to hunt on my land go out my driveway with their tails between their legs. As a kid I busted my butt in Dad's rock fields for very little pay as I'm sure Stan did. At the end of the day I didn't feel like mowing lawns or delivering newspapers.

So, what some of you guys are saying is that Larry Brown has nothing useful to add to this web site. To that I say Poppycock. Over the years I've read several of his articles and found them useful and informative. His posts here are usually of a factual nature. This throwing of rocks is unbecoming IMO.

On an international board for exchange of information and opinion there's a propensity for Americans to tell others off. From my observations---and I'm no arbiter---non-Americans agree and disagree without rudeness and obscenities exhibited here. Face-to-face, Americans are generous and engaging people.

I don't think we can expect any improvement. The US is a violent country compared to other developed countries. It seems to like to punish, and punish severely i.e. with five per cent of the world's population the US has 25 per cent of its prisoners. One in nine of the 50 states' employees is a penitentiary guard.

Any change will have to wait until Americans start a conversation about why they do what they do. As for Larry, I value his contributions.

So a pissing match between three of the regular and respected posters here in a thread about cartridge selection has now turned into a blanket indictment of my nation by someone from another nation.

I believe there is plenty of political invective, piss-fighting, conservative baiting, and lecturing available down in the MisFires section. I cannot see any need for it in this section or in this thread.

Larry's walk'in the walk in the gun writing world. It's tough though to read about changing some wants and preferences into part of the daily struggle to get through life. I think some of us want to be here to visit and probably don't need to be here. Same as my thought about Stan. I fully agree, but I just hope that's a thought and not some new hunting test that we have to get certified in.

Quick off topic comment from the cheap seats. Hope Larry's not working on an article about how great it would be for the US to join the CIP so we can start proofing all our guns.;)

I think there is something to the positioning of the birds that attract more attention. My first trip to Arkansas was during the 1998 season - unbelievable migration that year. We would have 30 birds come in, 6 guys would shoot, and we all thought we had hit the birds we were trying to shoot. I think we were all shooting at the same 5-6 birds. When you look at a bird, pull the trigger, and the bird falls you tend to think you shot it. I would be certain I had tripled but someone else would be saying they hit some of the same birds. That was all fine and dandy until the dog showed up with a duck band.

Damn fine dog---I never had a dog that was much into music----;)

Back to the initial question. I think most hunters don't shoot that well because they don't shoot often. And that's based on the people I've hunted with over the years and my personal experience. I used to hunt a lot and shoot a little....now I shoot a lot and hunt a little. My game shooting is light years ahead of where it was and most shots seem pretty elementary now whether upland or waterfowl. Practice might not make perfect, but it goes a long way.

I was responding to buzz's "throwing rocks unbecoming," Mike, not a blanket indictment; observed it's a tendency of Americans who on evidence here and Misfires have a tendency to tell people off, rudely and often obscenely. You feel as I do: there's no place for it in either forum.

Threads get long; people lose track. I didn't think how poorly most hunters shoot was related to cartridge selection, but maybe I missed something.

Larry Brown is an absolute idiot and has proven it on this thread. I never paid for a shell until I returned from the Army in 1969. That was because I loaded shells for my gun club from the time I was about 14 years old, load five, keep one. Free shells isn't the only way to become a good game shot. Stan worked for his shells and so did I. I shot as much as I could and became a fair NSSA, NSCA, and NRA International Skeet competitor as well as a fair game shot. What Stan and I both object to is someone who has the means to become a good shot and doesn't bother. My friend KYjon gave us an illustration of a shooter who only takes the shots that he is confident in taking. That is the proper procedure for a shot with limited or diminishing ability. Unfortunately, most game shooters take every shot that presents itself. That is the wrong approach. Every shot taken at a game bird should be a shot within the capability of the shooter and the gun. Anyone can be a fair game shot if they care to be one.

Larry are you and King Brown related? Brothers perhaps? Just wondering.

No, Larry. Poor game shooting is not about cartridge selection, it is about the reluctance of most hunters to learn how to shoot a shotgun. Different thread. Most of the objection to King Brown involves his liberal politics. King is a nice guy, but he is a Canadian who doesn't understand what we in the USA are all about. Maybe he should try to visualize what life in Canada would be like if we weren't here for the last 200 years.

You have never been more correct Bill.......and the total of your post you made on page 7 as well.......you are so right, L. Brown is an "absolute idiot"....he fools only the people who don't know very much.

Ok I'll confess. In comers at a 45 degree angle are murder for me. If I snap shoot I'll get them, though I don't know why. If I try to track or swing through I miss. I think it's because I'm dropping my shoulder as I twist my body causing me to shoot low. I've gotten to where I'll let those incomers about 45 degress get abeam and then I'll shoot.

Larry, Eightbore, my mistake. When I made that post and wrote "thread about cartridge selection" I thought I was on the thread about #10 shot, not this "how bad do you shoot" thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Just a short comment. King Brown is disturbed about conversation he has had on the off topics forum. What he doesn't understand is that we on the gun subforums don't participate over there and aren't normally familiar with King Brown's liberal rants over there. We are interested in gun stuff over here. King, we over here think bird hunters should know how to shoot a shotgun. Now, what do you think? Bill Murphy, your friend in Maryland.

Help me out here, craig. What exactly do you mean by that? I know I'm slow, but I ain't following you.

SRH

Canadians are grateful to have the United States as a neighbour, and I criticize as friends do---and true friendship calls for it---when its citizens and others have little or no respect for its institutions. To read what some members say of their country makes hell seem like an improvement.

It's fair for members to differ from my opinions as I do theirs. I believe you're as embarrassed by bad manners as I and others are. But don't think for a minute that Canadians don't understand what's going on in your country. No other country lives with the pervasiveness of your culture.

I think you are correct, Bill. Bad manners denigrate the integrity of conversations in any forum, and I supported a member here on that subject. Dave Weber set similar rules for Misfires. As for my liberal opinions, where's the fun when right-wingers display theirs as big as life in a shooting gallery?

No sense in turning over the forum to a part of a party.

It pleased me that there seems a consensus that bird hunters are spotty in their shooting and could honour the birds and the sport with a modicum of year-round practise---and a dog. It sounds elitist but I'd love to hear a discussion about making a regulation of a dog with waterfowl parties.

King, are you related to LBrown? Brothers perhaps? Just wondering.

This is really unpleasant.

Thanks to those who responded with observations on the topic.

Stan, I just think you laid out your thoughts on game gunning. Seemed to me that Larry was stretching things a bit on being practical. I still can't think of one story here where a member is subsistence hunting or face dire consequences. I see the gun and hunting stories as primarily nonessential wants and no where near basic needs.

I agree with you that excuses are just that, excuses. I think if everyone has to achieve say that upper ten percent, then all that's going to happen is we have to send ninety percent of the hunters home. I just can't shoot that good, but I still want to go out and hunt.

Lets get this back on topic.
I am going to qualify my answer by separating my results by the species of game pursued. I hunt Partridge (ruff grouse for the uninitiated) in the overgrown pastures, brains, Hawthorne, thickets and rocky orchards of the Catskills of NYS. That type of rough shooting isn’t Pheasant hunting in the cornfields of Iowa or hunting Huns and Sharpie’s on the grasslands of Montana. Not saying that those hunts are a cakewalk but there is a difference. Where I hunt it seems like you always need one leg shorter than the other.

My hunting gun of choice is almost always an AH Fox double in 20 or 16 unless it’s a crappy day and then the SKB 20 SxS comes out. I hunt with my Field Bred Springer. We only have a 4 bird limit and I have never limited, never tried, never cared to. But maybe it would be an ego booster to accomplish it once. But it isn’t necessary.

Back in the early mid 80’s, when I got my first bird dog ( another Springer) I trained her behind my house. I was living on the edge of town and had a nice meadow about 100 yards by 300 yards bordered by brush and hedges on three sides. My neighbor owned it. He was in his 80’s at the time and blind. He was a died in the wool partridge gunner (and ducks) . He owned the feed mill in ton and also had some duck hunting lands u in Canada at one time but his true passion was Partridge. He ran Springers and shot a Remington 32 and a Browning Superposed; both 12 ga. Guns. Whenever I had the dog working out back, his daughter would ask me to bring my dog in to see him when we were done. Kate would run in and jump up on his lap and he would hold her and stroke her and then start telling me stories of bird hunting when he was younger, growing up in the area. I was in my 20’s and didn’t realize at the time that I should have taken some notes and made some sort of record of his hunting experiences. Anyway, his one bit of advice to me was that if you wanted to kill partridge, you had to put lead in the air. If a bird flushed and you saw pieces of it through the branches and cover, swing and shoot . if you ever wait for that open shot, you will never kill a bird. Having a dog was a necessity because you didn’t always see where that bird might fall.

I remember later on in life bringing friend to chase birds and they would yell “bird” hen one flushed and I would wait and listen and no shot. I would ask why they didn’t shoot and they would invariably say they didn’t have a clear shot. I would give them the advice given me but they still wouldn’t shoot.

I can’t count the number of times I flushed a bird and swung and tracked it and shot and shot again and watched t drop, after branches were shredded and leaves fluttered to the ground. It’s not like hunting ducks or pheasants or quail or Huns or Sharpies. I may be biased but that’s how I see it. I generally shoot about 3 shells for each bird I get. I shoot clays once or twice a year , not because I don’t want to but because of the other things in my life that I have to do.

I will say that my now since departed hunting partner usually shot 75-80 percent. The last year he was alive he did have his best day ever, he killed 4 Partridge with 4 shells. He never missed. The last bird he hit but he didn’t find it for over half an hour. He knew he hit it but didn’t see exactly where it dropped. He didn’t have a dog. He searched and searched and found it. A true sportsman in every sense. Then he up and died on me.

Someday in the future I will become an old crusty bustard like the majority of you guys here on the board and Ill be able to spend my golden years shooting clays, trading guns and setting others straight. And of course my average will then be in the 80-90 % range.

Brian you are right in that where and what you shoot at matters a great deal. I am spoiled by open shooting on pointed birds in the wild and preserve birds outside of regular season.

Open shooting lanes and without question over a point makes shooting within 20 yards with open chokes a relatively set shot. I am not a great clays shot, especially on distant targets. I don't have to be. I imagine if all I shot was passing ducks or doves I would get to be good at that (today I am not) It is no different than the skeet and trap shooters who used to depress me when I was a teenager and couldn't break over 20 out of 25 except by luck. They shot 24-25 everytime or so it seemed. They were consistent as they shot a lot of the same sets time and time again. Practice, Judgement, the right equipment, and time on any particular thing matters.

My grouse hunting days when a LT behind a Lab definitely had much lower percentages than my current 1-2 shells per bird on most days. Say more like 4-6 if I could find my notes from then. If I went back to it I would probably start out the same or worse for awhile.

I learned a long time ago in western Kansas when I showed up with my beautiful double, that the old guy with the worn out 870 was fairly likely to out shot me regardless of my clays practice and perfect fit. He knew where to be and when to shot, and just as importantly, when not to. That is the result of a lifetime of working the one game with the one gun. Interestingly I can recall more than once discussing quail in eastern kansas with the western boys and hearing from the great pheasant shots that quail was tough shooting compared to pheasant, while I thought the opposite as I cleaned up on quail all the time back then. They shot few quail and did not have the practice I did. Today, I am still not a great pheasant shot on unpointed birds.

There is hope for any of us who pursue this with a passion that we will improve to a fine point and hold it there for awhile till age takes down a bit. My father towards the end could only preserve shot or block on pheasant and his speed to acquire and fire meant he missed taking most shots. I noted he still went out and tried all the up through age 83 still bagging a few. It was more about the dogs and being with the boys than killing things.

I do not comment much about the overall quality of shooting as I cannot truly judge it. I know how things are where I have hunted over time and what I have witnessed. I know that it is not an accurate measure and my buddy who guides at a preserve sees the whole spectrum from deadly accurate to very very sad.

I was sad once too so I do not blindly hurl rocks at the general public on skills I cannot judge. All that said, those of us who frequent this board are a self selected and a probably over passionate group who take what we do too seriously and therefore are not a good sampling of the population. I suspect we do shoot above average, I sure hope we do. I believe the question changed to how many shells per bird versus percentage would change to 90% plus score to 1-2 shells per bird with 90% plus taken within those two shots.

PS 3 shells per grouse on the woods is pretty good.

Not related but would consider it a distinction. He's generous with his experience and well-mannered.

One in three is good shooting. I have same gun, same cover and believe in your friend's shoot without clear shot.

Looks to me like some impolite folks got up on the wrong side of the bed. I post the results of an actual study on how poorly hunters shoot, and that makes me an idiot. Oh well . . . I also had the occasional "problem student" who lacked the DESIRE to understand, back when I was in the teaching business. True in HS, college, and the Army. But unfortunate.

Matter of fact, I also object to someone who has the means to become a good shot and doesn't bother. Of course if eightbore had bothered to read my posts, he would have observed my point: which is that a lot of people lack the means. As we get older, we tend to think: "Well hell . . . I did it back in the 1960's. Which means anyone and everyone can do it now." Well, there are a lot of hunters, to start with, who lack the desire to become really good shots. Hunting isn't that big a deal to them. They're not that concerned about how well they shoot. Haven't looked recently at the available statistics concerning the target shooting games, but I recall being surprised to learn that close to half the ATA members DO NOT HUNT. Couldn't find similar numbers of NSCA (sporting clays) members who are hunters. But when you consider that the total membership of NSCA is something like 30,000, and when South Dakota alone has about 150,000 pheasant hunters in a typical season, it more or less puts things in perspective. Relatively few really serious target shooters in the ranks of bird hunters.

And things are significantly tougher these days in terms of "means" than it was in the long ago--or even not so long ago--past. You want to shoot a lot; save money by reloading. Except that doesn't save you nearly as much as it used to, with shot now a minimum of $40 a bag, more than that most places; powder and primer prices also way up; not to mention the fact that the gas you need to get you to the range is almost twice what it was just 5 years ago. Excuses, you say? OK . . . or maybe explanations. Are a lot of people in this country doing a whole lot better now than they were 5 or 10 years ago? Don't the economists keep telling us about stagnation in the middle class--which is where most shooters and hunters fall? For me, the nearest skeet range that's open from October to April is over 50 miles away. Unless the weather is godawful bad, or except during hunting season, I'll make that drive at least once a week. But I'm retired, and nobody has yet started tampering with my pretty decent military pension, not to mention Social Security. No kids at home or in college, an understanding wife, and no other really expensive hobbies.

So it takes both desire--which most hunters lack--and it also takes the right situation in terms of money and time available. And when the economy's bad, as it is now, there's less money and time available. A gun dealer friend is backing off on his gun show schedule. Why? Because, at least in this part of the country, very little buying of the kind of guns we talk about on this board. And his inventory is of the modestly priced category. Liquid propane, which many people in the rural Upper Midwest use to heat their homes, doubled or tripled in price this year. I paid $500 more--for just 200 gallons--than I've ever paid before. I pity the people living closer to the edge than I am, and who burn a lot more LP than I do. But it makes a big difference in terms of means when the gas to get you to the range is close to $4/gallon instead of $2, when LP is $5 instead of $1.50, when shot is north of $40 a bag instead of $15 or $20. Something has to give, and what gives in your typical budget is disposable income above things which are necessary--like heating your home and the cost of driving your car.

So let's try looking at people and the economy as they are TODAY, not as they were back when we were learning to shoot . . . and when I was able to send a $50 money order home every month when I was in Basic and AIT, and have enough money saved as a result to pay for my first semester of college. That's not today's world . . . unfortunately.

And while King and I are not related, I value his contributions from north of the border. His politics aren't mine, but I've been married to a Democrat for almost 30 years, and I've been hunting with another one for 40 years.

Finally, as for PA24's evaluation of my mental abilities . . . Anyone who talks about shooting nothing more open than modified and then refers to spreaders ought to maybe check his own thought processes and logic. Or lack thereof.

I know you don't comprehend what you read very well Brown, so let me lay it out in "Sally See Spot Run" terms for you...... I never said I shoot spreaders, I don't shoot spreaders or reload them or hunt in topography that requires the use of them..... I live in the Western U.S.A. and hunt in the Western U.S.A. and a typical shot is longer than your porch in Wisconsin.

And yes, I have hunted 60+ years with only modified and full choked guns and I have done quite well thank you.... According to the FAA my eyesight is still 20/10, how is yours...?

Spreaders were mentioned as an option for brush lot hunters, like you, who talk about and need to shoot up close and personal with regularity, without grinding/boring/changing vintage original F/M chokes.....I do believe that is why spreaders were invented, I would think you already know that, then again maybe not.

Sorry to see a great topic get sidelined and trashed, hard for me to understand. As to "how poorly", I usually describe myself as a lifelong mediocre shot. Newly met people say "that can't be true, you shot tons of birds!". My response is "I hunt a lot!" After nearly 60 years of shotguning a few truths seem apparent:

1. A new gun rarely ups my average, never shot better than I did when all I could afford was a 12 ga. 870 as my only gun. Shot everything from quail to Canadas, just changed loads and the barrel--either a 26" Imp. Cyl. or a 30" full choke.

2. Species and method might be #1. Decoyed ducks, I shoot over 75% with 100% on occasion. Ruffed grouse I might as well shoot a slingshot, seldom over 20%.

3. Most hunters are shooting guns that are overchocked. My current "go to" gun is a SKB 585 12 ga. o/u. Though I have 7-8 chokes I rarely switch from SK1 and SK2 chokes no matter if I'm pass shooting geese with steel BB's or hunting praire grouse over my Springer with lead #7's.

4. Age is a mixed blessing. I often hunt waterfowl with a 20 something son of a old hunting buddy. His reflexes and shooting ability are something I dimly remember if ever I actually had his level of skill. The down side is I don't shoot nearly as well as I used to and I'm losing lifelong hunting partners at an alarming rate. The up side, retirement allows me 60+ days in the field every year and the opportunity to hunt the exotic (for me) places I read about all my life.

5. I, too, fell for the "magumitis" advertising on ammunition. Heavy loads of big pellets at high velocity. I admit to an aversion to recoil and have returned to light loads at reasonable velocity and do better. Raised in S.D. at the zenith of pheasant/duck hunting I saw thousands of birds killed with 1 1/4 of 6's at 1220 fps. I now shoot 1 oz. or 1 1/8 oz. 12 ga., 7/8 or 1 oz. 20 ga. loads @ 1200 fps and smallish shot--7's being my all around favorite. For ducks, 1 oz. of steel #3's at 14-1500 fps or so matches the old favorite of 1 1/4 of lead #4's at 1220.

6. Practice, practice, practice! I shot best as a kid, a thousand rounds or so every summer(I had a job and a handloading setup, want to avoid an attack) at flying birds; pigeons, crows, blackbirds, starlings and sparrows were all fair game. Now I'm reduced to several sporting clays and five stand shooting sessions every summer and wish I could do more. Oh, and by the way, to support my claim of mediocre shooting, breaking over 65 at sporting clays is cause for celebration.

My overall average when the hunting season is done (last week in Nebraska for spring snows for me) would likely be something like 50%---high 80's on ducks and preserve pheasants, low 20's on ruffed and blue grouse.

Steve

From personal experience and observation ....

1) When you do a lot of shooting at a particular quarry you get reasonably good at it. When I was shooting wood pigeon big time (mostly over decoys) the local gun shop / game dealer would give a 25 Express shells for 10 dead woodpigeon. I used a Rizzini O/U with Cylinder and full and reckoned on 17 birds per box.

2) You can have favourite shots and bogy ones too. Wood pigeon coming in to roost I found just suited me somehow, and yet other folk who I reckon are better shots overall than me can really struggle. A dropping pheasant with a curl on it is as safe as houses if I'm around; I might as well throw my hat at it. Actually, I have.

3) Booze does you in. Not to re-start the great drink debate, but one can of beer knocks my performance to pieces. I'm not drunk, far from it, but the timing and co-ordination rapidly go downhill.

4) Being young and physically fit is a huge advantage; being old and shagged out really really sucks. Post cardiac surgery, rotator cuff problems, wonky eyesight getting wonkier and a drug regime that could kill cockroaches, I'm now too embarrassed to pick up a gun.

Eug

Not having reviewed every post on this thread, I would contribute simply that; Have gun that fits, will hit bird frequently. Have gun that doesn't will hit bird much much less frequently.

Brian,

Different venues definitely offer different problems as far as shot placement. Chasing Bobwhites in Black Jack timber or thick Sumac doesn't guarantee dinner as does some of the mucky conditions I've shot Woodcock in.
Most all of us (that hold down a permanent job) have a plenty of constraints on our fun time. I used to shoot rifles predominantly, High Power, Small Bore. Scheutzen and Black Powder..I was decent at most. Several years ago my focus switched to clays and have had decent success at that. Consequently my rifle shooting has suffered. I'd like to do it all at a high level but as already mentioned there are plenty of other things to address. Personally, at this juncture in my life Clays has my main attention for leisure time with the added benefit of improving my game shooting.

Thanks for simplifying things for me, PA24. There are folks in the Western United States that hunt birds in thick cover. Ruffed grouse, for example . . . although never having hunted them out there, I understand they're not as nervous as our Midwest/Eastern US birds. Also some of the western quail species, other than the desert birds.

Spreaders are of value to people who don't hunt in thick cover ALL the time, which pretty much describes grouse and woodcock hunters. I wrote the chapter on grouse guns in the recently-published "A Passion For Grouse" . . . my qualification being that I've missed more grouse with more different guns than any other writer they could find. Brian's 1 for 3 is a pretty typical success rate on ruffs, as verified in the hunting logs submitted by the Loyal Order of Dedicated Grouse Hunters--LODGH. What he didn't add is that you're likely to get 1 shot for every 3 grouse you flush. Do the math . . . that means the average hunter needs to flush 9 birds to kill 1. Which is why grouse hunters (and even more so, woodcock hunters--doodles being shot at even closer range, and sometimes in even thicker cover) like open chokes pretty much ALL the time. So unless someone has a gun with sentimental value on which he does not want to tamper with the chokes, he'll probably just go ahead and open them rather than going to the time and expense required to shoot spreaders. Spreaders were invented for INFREQUENT users of open chokes, not FREQUENT ones. You won't see many skeet shooters using their trap guns, for example, and feeding them spreaders.

But the point you seem to have missed--and still seem to miss--is that as soon as you put a spreader in your M or F barrel and pull the trigger, it's no longer M or F. What's stamped on the barrel, or the constriction you measure, does not determine the choke. That's determined by the resulting pattern--which, if it isn't any more open than M from a spreader load, means you need to find better spreaders. And if you were to hunt grouse and woodcock, or other consistently close range game, you'd have more birds in more edible quality as a result of opening your choke--whether with a hone or with spreaders.

And not to denigrate all your western hunting experience, but I lived in Iowa during the years when it was the best pheasant state in the nation. Did just fine shooting nothing tighter than LM--and that was in the tight barrel of guns usually choked more like skeet in the R barrel. A good dog, knowing how to hunt the birds . . . no need for a bunch of choke on pheasants. Guided hunters on wild Iowa roosters for a few years during the 90's, and sad to say, I saw plenty of misses at ranges where cyl would have stoned roosters.

Well Mr. Brown let's just say your ideas are vastly different from mine. In my hormone charged youth my favorite pheasant gun was a ten pound 1889 Remington 10 bore. One barrel loaded with #2's and the other with #4's. The long shots were mine in our hunting party. 40 yards I would start to think about pulling a trigger. I sure would have had fun cleaning the air on your client's misses and making your dogs go the extra mile. Now I'm on a downhill pull to 60 years old and the guns are now seven pound 12 bores. The chokes remain the same Full/Mod, still #4's and I still like the long shots.

I don't know if you have to be on the downhill to prefer 4s and 2s, JRB. In my seacoast fishing village, that's all we used for ducks and geese, nothing else was ordered in, and limited to one size today my preference would No. 4. There wasn't a gun that wasn't M/F. Today it's all clickety-clacks.

In the scheme of things, and at the risk of quoting a democrat, what difference does it make?

I don't think anyone on this board is shooting birds with a pricey sxs because that's the only way they can put food on the table. If putting food on the table was the task, I would think rustling cattle or poaching a deer would be more successful. Wandering around with an old half lame or half trained dog shooting cat food aint exactly "a need". It's all about fun and none of it's any more serious than playing donky kong, IMO.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of pheasant hunters can't hit 40+ yard shots at pheasants--or when they do, they're more likely to only cripple the birds, then lose them, rather than kill them cleanly. Tom Roster's steel shot lethality tests on pheasants--preserve birds rather than wild ones, which are easier to bag--showed that of those birds hit inside 30 yards, all but 2 out of 68 were recovered. A wounding loss rate of 3%. That compares to a wounding loss rate of 15% for birds at 40 yards or beyond. Of the 1300-odd wild roosters shot between 1987-2006 over my dogs--4 shorthairs, a pointer, a Gordon setter, an English setter, and a Brittany--we had a wounding loss rate of 6%. Looking at birds lost, the longer it takes a dog to get to the bird in question, the greater the chances of losing the bird. That's true whether it's due to a bird hit at longer range, or one hit with some other factor that gives a crippled bird more of a head start (woven wire fence, road, waterway with steep banks etc). A more open choke means a greater chance for the average hunter to bag birds at closer range. At 30 yards, 1 1/8 oz 6's through a cyl choke should kill pheasants; 1 1/4 oz 6's through IC should be good at close to 40 yards. Beyond that, where most people will either miss or only cripple, you do need to be a much better than average shot, and use a tighter choke and larger shot to put birds down for the count.

I feel the same way. If you're out walking around the wetland, prairie, or woods w/dog and friends, who the heck cares what your percentage is? It's supposed to be fun. Missing IS part of the fun...right? The jokes, the razzing by friends, the internal questions about how in the world I could miss that beautifully pointed rooster I walked all day to get a shot at. Afterall, it's called hunting, not "killing".

And, to me, an old vintage sxs is a handicap anyway. I shoot my Beretta 391 much better. But, I enjoy it less. The sxs adds to the whole process. I understand that more now moving into middle age.

Phunter and Chuck express my outlook perfectly. The only thing I could add is I do my best to be aware of my limitations as a shooter and keep my attempts limited to shots that are within my abilities. And I don't go for the next bird until I've found the last one... or spent a long time searching.

If you miss clean, fine. Problem is, a lot of "misses"--especially on pheasants, because they're both hard to bring down and hard to recover if brought down with 2 good legs--aren't clean. So you're crippling, not killing . . . and may very well not recover the bird, especially without a good dog.

Personally, while you cannot eliminate all birds knocked down and lost, losing a bird--at least to me--is the least "fun" part of hunting. That's why I shoot quite a few clay birds for practice, and why I try to shoot within my capability. I very seldom shoot at birds beyond 40 yards, unless they've already been hit but not brought down. And I hunt with dogs that are pretty good at retrieving cripples. If I'm hunting a young or inexperienced dog, I'm even more selective about the shots I take. I'm certainly not shooting for food; nor, however, am I shooting to feed the predators and scavengers.

On that point of feeding predators and scavengers---and how poorly do we shoot?---around here bald eagles roost near where they see active blinds and gunners.

If you haven't got good retrievers or boat nearby, eagles snatch cripples before we can get to them. When I become king I'm proclaiming regulation requiring dogs for waterfowl hunting.

I hope that would be a local requirement. Every now and then a story goes around about someone losing a dog on one of the local lakes. The image of seeing an alligator eating a beloved pet is enough that I would be willing to break that law. My dog only hunts with me on the coldest days when the chances of encountering either a gator or cottonmouth are diminished.

Snipe Hunter, are you suggesting more rules and regulations taking the place of common sense? What is wrong with the Bald Eagles snatching a few cripples?

King said boat or dog. I don't hunt where King does but I spent decades hunting waterfowl with neither. Requires thoughtfulness and commitment. I didn't lose many. I'd rather a few predators feast on cripples than add to the overwhelming level of regulation we are already subject to.

This is what King said:

"When I become king I'm proclaiming regulation requiring dogs for waterfowl hunting."

Apparently you saw his allowance of the use of a boat as an option to a dog that does not show up on my computer. And no, I'm not suggesting more rules or regulations. I'm suggesting that if he wanted such a law, and I realize his comment was in jest, I would hope that it would be something that would only affect him where he hunts, not me. Hence, a "local requirement". Then I went on to say that if it did apply to me it would be a law that I would be willing to break. I hope that clears up any confusion.

James, my post is as serious as the other part of becoming king! It's a reflection of the lousy judgement re range and retrieval prospects, sky-busting, no effort to retrieve cripples or even dead drifting offshore.

It's endemic. I shoot mostly over decoys, pick my shots and have lost exactly three birds over the last 45 years: once when a black came down dead and pierced the ice and slid for about six feet. The ice was too thick for dog and too thin for me.

The other two occasions were when I called in great dogs pursuing crippled bluebills in foot-and-half whitecaps 300 metres from shore. They would have stayed until they drowned. Duck hunting for me is mostly the dog. Today's gunners don't approach the ethos of even the old poachers.

"Today's gunners don't approach the ethos of even the old poachers." LOL

King, you know me....I'm not a fan of more government regulation, for anything! And in particular regulations that take the place of common sense. Regulation is the bane of common sense for when you follow the regs, you no longer think. And if you don't think.....

I sometimes hunt waterfowl with dogs now and love doing so. But sometimes I don't. I own setters, not labs. The lack of an appropriate dog for duck hunting shouldn't limit my ability to do so.

It's just another version of putting cart before the horse. If you want regulations, make it a problem if you don't find and gather all shot ducks! The dog is just a method for accomplishing that goal. But there are other methods. Forgive me here becasue we are not in misfires but it's the age old problem of the left, regulating behavior, not outcome.

Snipe, I was confused by the intent of your post and I did get King's humour. He must have edited it to add the boats part. I only saw "dogs and boats"

And the alligators still creep me out! LOL

I probably didn't elaborate as well as I could have in my initial reply to Mr. Brown. Factor in that many of the replies in this thread should not be taken seriously and we only have a greater chance of being taken out of context. In that regard I am as guilty as anyone.

And still the shot was taken. There must be some regulation to add to all the others that would've prevented the duck hunt in the first place. Sorry about that. In a small way I'm glad you lost those bluebills. You got one of those rare looks at truly exceptional dog work. When you got them back on shore, I bet all they wanted was a big attaboy from you.

Me too King. It is all about the dogs. I just transport them to the hunting grounds, shoot the birds for them, and carry their water and dead birds for them.

I waited until the mud dried up to post.

People are lousy shots.

That's OK with me.

Just go to a marsh at dawn. Pow, Pow, Pow,.....Pow, Pow, Pow.....Pow, Pow, Pow,....over and over again. Until the first flight is over.

The go to the woods.
Pow, Pow,.....Pow, Pow,.... over and over, all day. Sometimes it's Pow, Pow, Pow,...

I can't see how anyone that is actually out there observing the public would see/hear anything different.

The public hunter is in aggregate, a lousy shot.

That's OK by me.

It's probably always been so.

Except for wealthy retirees, the likelihood of people devoting ten's of thousands of dollars into improving their skills, is such a statistical vagary as to be insignificant.

As in, for every 1 person that might do that, there is 100 that can't do that. But they can buy a license.

I don't even care what chokes you use. You'll be disposing of your own birds. Blown to pieces, or neck wrung.

Some of us maintain kennels just so that all the lousy shots can have their cripples rounded up. It's the good fun more that the first shot kill % for some of us.
I don't care if my hunting friends are good shots or not. It's about the fun we are having being out there.

On one of the farms in which I hunt in Iowa, the owner restricts access to a few people. One of them had permission to hunt himself, but brought a few friends one day. He reported to her that they'd hunted, and lost something like 5 birds. That ended his permission to hunt.

A good dog can make a poor shot look a lot better, but I hate to rely on the dogs to that extent. I do most of my hunting with people who shoot reasonably well, and who know enough not to shoot when it's too long a chance for them to be very likely to kill it.

Larry, you're self-regulating, as I am. I don't hunt with those who don't respect the birds or the land. I'm there for enjoyment without aggravation of the senses. Mom said I'd be judged by the people I hang around.

Larry: I'm mainly a Grouse and Quail hunter, hence my fondness for open choked guns; however, I have hunted wild pheasants a few times, and to be frank I think tighter chokes are better for wild pheasants. I'm a decent shot and it's hard to tear up a pheasant. So for me, I would prefer a tighter choke where I could really clobber one. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I was going wild pheasant hunting, and knowing how those birds like to run and get up a ways out there sometimes, I would at least want a light mod if not tighter choke. Tame pheasants on the other hand are easy to kill with a skeet gun and #8 shot.....but not wild ones.

Buzz, experiences will vary. Talking with Bob Crandall--and we've both shot a LOT of wild pheasants--we're pretty much on the same page: Most shots are relatively close. And if they're on the fringe of range, you can likely walk a bit farther and find another one. But I'll add that we're both used to hunting in pretty good pheasant country (even though, sadly, it's getting worse everywhere!), usually in small groups, and behind good dogs. Can't recall whether I included the story here, but my last pheasant hunt of last season was in Iowa in January. Cold, windy, and the birds had been hunted--not conditions under which pheasants are expected to "behave". Yet in less than 2 hours, my partner and I flushed 6 roosters. 2 were way out of range. The other 4: all within 25 yards. And that's with Iowa bird numbers in the toilet.

However, experiences may vary. If you're experiencing longer chances wherever you're hunting, then you want to adjust accordingly. Personally, however, I haven't seen a higher % of longer shots since the population has taken a nosedive. I've seen fewer shots with more time and boot leather separating them, but not more longer shots.

Seems like all upland hunting went to HIAHB all at once a couple years ago.

Cylinder and full are a nice combination in a double barrel two trigger gun.

Chuck I'll bite: What is HIAHB?

Mike----Hell In A Hand Basket.

Mike, that's the way my 1889 16ga Parker hammer 0 frame came from the factory. My son on first hunt killed a passing widgeon first shot well outside the decoys---right barrel---and had no interest in hunting after that. He may have thought it too easy!

What qualifies as HIAHB, Chuck?
Is it a measure of shot opportunities/hr walked?

I ask because I am accustomed to a certain level of exertion per bird shot at. Consequently, I have come to feel short changed when the effort is too small. An example might be shooting a triple in SoDak 5 minutes after 10AM.
That's a waste of the drive to me.

I'm with Larry and Bob in the belief that we need not panic at every flush, as though it is the last we'll ever see. Once you know the quarry, you gain confidence that tells you, you can find another, and you don't need to worry about "Hail Mary" type shots. Some men hunt a lifetime and never achieve that understanding. No one scolds me if I come home empty handed.

I'm curious what level of harvest is acceptable to the lease investors. It's a different situation than what I have, so I often wonder if they measure their satisfaction more directly to bag and cash outlay than I do.

My experience mirrors what others have posted. As a child, we had a large farm with plenty of dove on it. Before I was old enough to hunt, I went along with my Father, Brother, Uncles, Cousins, and Grandfather. I recall a particular day when I was 12 and had a spare day to go shooting by myself. I had to rely on my Grandmother to take me out to the Farm and as I was getting gear together, she caught me taking a whole box of shells. This was anathema to her upbringing and she let me have a total of 12 shells for a days hunt. I took a limit of 10 dove that day with my Savage 311. I still think that was perhaps the finest bit of shooting I ever did. The last bird and last shot coincided, and while I've killed enough birds over the years to fill a warehouse, that last high crosser will be etched in my memory forever.

That said, after a season of heavy shooting, I went out on the last day of the year this past January with my best and oldest friend after quail. We put up a dozen covies and I actually ran out of shells before I ran out of birds, bringing a measly 4 quail home. I was shooting my favorite gun, but for whatever reason, I couldn't hit a thing. Regardless, that day with my best friend and our dogs will also be etched in my mind forever.

While I didn't directly answer the query of the OP, I will posit that it doesn't really matter how well a hunter shoots, it matters how well one hunts.

Rob.

I could say that how well you shoot does matter to the birds you cripple and don't recover, but I don't want to play Disney with quail and pheasants. Something in nature will consume that which we cripple and leave behind. That being said, the fence-sitting nonhunters--who are, by far, the majority in this country--can be pushed off the fence when they hear about hunters doing a lot of crippling rather than killing cleanly. For example, the landowner I referred to earlier might just as easily have decided that if hunters were going to cripple as many roosters as they killed on her property, then she'd keep ALL hunters out. Not good for any of us. We owe it to the continuation of our sport to recognize our capabilities and limitations, and to shoot within them. We should all make at least some effort to be better shots, because being a better shot is part--but far from all--of being a better hunter.

I used to live in, and I mean in, not around, some prime pheasant country. After the season was over and winter forced all game, deer included into visable herds, for lack of a better term. The rooster to hen ratio ran consistantly around 50/50. This is still too many roosters. About ten hens/rooster is on the low end. In ten years there I never observed less than close to 50/50. These excess roosters compete with the hens for the same food. Think about that for a moment. To be sure I am not advocating sloppy shooting or not caring for the game. I am stressing the point that roosters should be thinned out. As Col. Brown posted something will benefit from the crips. As long as they are roosters even the hens will. And for the exitable and/or color blind, don't shoot the brown ones, OK?!

Chief

It does worry me when I think I may have wounded a bird but if its a clean miss I just tip my hat to the bird and grin at my own foibles. I'm glad I live with myself cause I've had way more good free laughs than the law should allow.

To me there's nothing wrong with working to become a better shot, but I believe nonhunters will be fed what someone thinks they should hear. Another way to look at your example, those hunters were exemplary by their honesty, no account of questionable hunting technique, but maybe just unlucky on that day. It's possible that land owner was concerned about unauthorized trespassing. I really don't know, but the landowner seemed willing to allow the birds to be removed from her spread before the hunters showed up that day.

When I first read the story I assumed the landowner was upset because the permissioned hunter brought friends along without checking with her first.

Me too. Getting permission to hunt from a landowner doesn't give me the right to permit others.

Jay

Landowners want to know who is on their land. Having permission and then arbitrarily bringing others is a definite no-no because often slob friends tell their friends, and landowners have to contend with it.

Whatever it takes, whether at a trap range, in your backyard with a Trius trap, or a friend throwing clay birds with a hand held thrower, a swing or shooting for that matter doesn't come naturally, you have to practice. The greatest sniper of WWII when asked how he became such a great shot with a rifle, his one word response was, "Practice"

However, on the other hand, one of the best shots I've seen at a trap range with his Ithaca Model 37 froze solid at a blind flush of roughed grouse while out in the woods. Go figure!!!