Forums46
Topics538,313
Posts9,735,692
Members87,082
|
Most Online25,604 Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7696654
12/23/19 03:11 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 18,567
ducknbass
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 18,567 |
My favorite load for wood ducks is Express steel 7 shot from Walmart. Stone dead.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: kman2017]
#7696680
12/23/19 03:40 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280
zbot11
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280 |
Birds flying off are completely different than dropping a bird in thick brush and being unable to find it. That's fair. I agree with you. I would probably argue there are situations where someone should be on the hook even if they make a "reasonable effort". If I shoot a bird on a big lake, wind at my back, without a dog, and it gets swept out before I can reach it, that's really on me. I shouldn't have been in that position in the first place.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: Smokey Bear]
#7696738
12/23/19 04:57 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154
KWood_TSU
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154 |
I don’t buy it Wood. Modern steel shot shells are pretty good. At 20-25 yards the cheap stuff will stone any duck that flies and that holds true out to 40-45 yards. Steel is 7.5 or so g/cc, bismuth is 9.6, lead is 11.3 or so. It's literally science that it's better. Watch any duck hunting show, there's more birds that aren't dead than dead when they hit the water.
Amat Victoria Curam - Victory Loves Preparation
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: KWood_TSU]
#7696787
12/23/19 05:55 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280
zbot11
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280 |
Steel is 7.5 or so g/cc, bismuth is 9.6, lead is 11.3 or so. It's literally science that it's better.
Watch any duck hunting show, there's more birds that aren't dead than dead when they hit the water. Get your so-called "science" out of here. This is place for real men who know what they see with their God-given eyes.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: zbot11]
#7696817
12/23/19 06:28 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154
KWood_TSU
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154 |
Steel is 7.5 or so g/cc, bismuth is 9.6, lead is 11.3 or so. It's literally science that it's better.
Watch any duck hunting show, there's more birds that aren't dead than dead when they hit the water. Get your so-called "science" out of here. This is place for real men who know what they see with their God-given eyes. Apparently you are correct.
Amat Victoria Curam - Victory Loves Preparation
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7696874
12/23/19 08:01 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 388
foodieguy
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 388 |
Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.
First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?
I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?
It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.
I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input.
Last edited by foodieguy; 12/23/19 08:01 PM.
Adult late onset hunter. Why did I wait so long to get started?
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: foodieguy]
#7696957
12/23/19 09:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 762
Duck Buster
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 762 |
Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.
First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?
I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?
It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.
I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input. I am answering this with the definition of ethical being that you take the life of the duck with as little suffering as possible. It is not unethical to shoot an unwounded duck on the water if that is your best chance of ensuring the bird dies and goes home with you. Less sporting, maybe, but not unethical. Many seasoned hunters may deem it less sportsman-like because the bird isn't flying...but I guarantee you they have shot a bird on the water that landed in the decoys before. Every has, and will do it. It is really up to you on if you want to make that shot. If you feel like its weird, don't do it and wait for a bird flying.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: Smokey Bear]
#7696971
12/23/19 09:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 35,511
Guy
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 35,511 |
I operate the same as you Yak. More important than my opinion though, Mr. Green Jeans will view it the same way. I do not think that is correct SB. The law is that you must make a reasonable effort to retrieve your wounded birds, but if you don't, it does not count against your bag. Regardless if it counts against your bag or not, letting wounded birds get away is not good, not something you want to do. Guy, The warden on my local lake has a well trained lab. The warden sits back and observes hunters from a distance, counting downed birds. When they show up if your count is lower than their count, that lab may find the rest of the down birds....if you are losing one out of every three birds shot, you would be likely to end up with a citation. Just stating the facts smokey. The law is you must make a “reasonable effort” to retrieve the bird, every GW probably has different interpretation of that, so use common sense and if you don’t have any you are SOL.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: foodieguy]
#7696999
12/23/19 10:21 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154
KWood_TSU
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154 |
Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.
First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?
I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?
It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.
I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input. I'll water swat all day long. If you're decoy spread fooled that bird into landing, fair game. That's the ultimate fooling
Amat Victoria Curam - Victory Loves Preparation
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: Guy]
#7697027
12/23/19 11:08 PM
|
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,210
Smokey Bear
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,210 |
I operate the same as you Yak. More important than my opinion though, Mr. Green Jeans will view it the same way. I do not think that is correct SB. The law is that you must make a reasonable effort to retrieve your wounded birds, but if you don't, it does not count against your bag. Regardless if it counts against your bag or not, letting wounded birds get away is not good, not something you want to do. Guy, The warden on my local lake has a well trained lab. The warden sits back and observes hunters from a distance, counting downed birds. When they show up if your count is lower than their count, that lab may find the rest of the down birds....if you are losing one out of every three birds shot, you would be likely to end up with a citation. Just stating the facts smokey. The law is you must make a “reasonable effort” to retrieve the bird, every GW probably has different interpretation of that, so use common sense and if you don’t have any you are SOL. I would be surprised if you or I handled this much different in the field Guy. You like me me handle this facet by working at running an effective dog. I’m also betting, like me, if you lose a bird it is a rare occurrence that gnaws at you, regardless of the game wardens point of view. Which I think is the crux of this thread...
Last edited by Smokey Bear; 12/23/19 11:08 PM.
Smokey Bear---Lone Star State.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7697227
12/24/19 02:31 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,510
tophorsecop
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,510 |
Water swatting... a necessary evil...if occasionally a bird is landing outside the spread or off to one side or the other...and the bird lands before the "boss" calls the shot...I say the guy with the best angle swats the duck on the water...the last thing you need is a live decoy outside of the spread attracting more birds to that location...I won't even let birds sit that are out of range and beyond the spread...they become a magnet for the next birds that work...swat 'em or chase them off...the only exception to that rule for me is if I'm hunting solo...then I try to sparingly call...to see if I can get the bird to swim into range...where i will promptly swat him...it's like the adage about hunting Scaled(Blue) quail...show me a quail hunter that won't shoot Scaled Quail when they are running...and I will show you a quail hunter that has never tasted Scaled Quail.
"Guns don't kill people, Guns kill dinner!"
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: foodieguy]
#7697930
12/25/19 01:38 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 837
yakinthebox
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 837 |
Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.
First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?
I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?
It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.
I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input. My opinion is that if I fooled a duck well enough that they land in my spread, I have won the game. I feel like ducks landing in my spread is the ultimate prize! I completely fooled them which is what the goal is. Having said that, I usually try to jump them up and then drop them just above the water, but it sometimes just works out that they get water swatted. I don't like to discriminate.
If you stay ready, you don't have to get ready! -Anonymous
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: foodieguy]
#7698427
12/25/19 08:16 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 35,511
Guy
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 35,511 |
Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.
First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?
I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?
It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.
I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input. I like to line them up on the water, water swat 4 with one shot, shoot a double when they fly up. Quick limit, drink coffee and make some breakfast.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7712951
01/09/20 07:54 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 271
Bluesea112
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 271 |
Just a comment about steel shot. The velocity of modern steel shot shells has increased to make up for the loss of energy from it being lighter than lead. Steel shot fired at 1600 fps has almost identical energy as lead shot fired at 1300 fps. Energy = weight x velocity (squared). Just a little increase in velocity increases impact energy by a lot. Modern waterfowl steel shells are just as deadly as old school lead. Numbers don't lie.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: Bluesea112]
#7712978
01/09/20 08:15 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280
zbot11
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280 |
Just a comment about steel shot. The velocity of modern steel shot shells has increased to make up for the loss of energy from it being lighter than lead. Steel shot fired at 1600 fps has almost identical energy as lead shot fired at 1300 fps. Energy = weight x velocity (squared). Just a little increase in velocity increases impact energy by a lot. Modern waterfowl steel shells are just as deadly as old school lead. Numbers don't lie. This is example of how numbers absolutely DO lie. Energy downrange will be much lower for that steel shot vs lead.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: Bluesea112]
#7713237
01/10/20 01:22 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154
KWood_TSU
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154 |
Just a comment about steel shot. The velocity of modern steel shot shells has increased to make up for the loss of energy from it being lighter than lead. Steel shot fired at 1600 fps has almost identical energy as lead shot fired at 1300 fps. Energy = weight x velocity (squared). Just a little increase in velocity increases impact energy by a lot. Modern waterfowl steel shells are just as deadly as old school lead. Numbers don't lie. Yeah, that's def not true. I've got a book and I'll post some numbers this weekend to disprove that scientifically
Amat Victoria Curam - Victory Loves Preparation
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7713589
01/10/20 03:56 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280
zbot11
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 280 |
More on this:
Steel #2, 1600 fps Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec) 0 1600 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 2 1507 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.003 4 1375 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.008 6 1290 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.012 8 1204 11.3 0.1 0.0 0.017 10 1136 10.1 0.1 0.0 0.022 15 1025 8.2 0.3 0.0 0.036 20 946 7.0 0.5 0.0 0.051 25 875 6.0 0.9 0.0 0.068 30 818 5.2 1.4 0.0 0.085 35 762 4.5 2.1 0.0 0.104 40 707 3.9 3.0 0.0 0.125 45 655 3.3 4.2 0.0 0.147 50 606 2.9 5.6 0.0 0.171
Lead #2, 1300 fps Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec) 0 1300 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 2 1249 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.004 4 1193 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.009 6 1146 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.014 8 1103 13.7 0.1 0.0 0.020 10 1074 13.0 0.1 0.0 0.025 15 1007 11.4 0.3 0.0 0.040 20 953 10.2 0.6 0.0 0.055 25 904 9.2 1.0 0.0 0.071 30 860 8.3 1.5 0.0 0.088 35 819 7.5 2.2 0.0 0.106 40 779 6.8 3.0 0.0 0.125 45 742 6.2 4.0 0.0 0.144 50 705 5.6 5.3 0.0 0.165
Lead #4, 1300 fps Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec) 0 1300 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.000 2 1242 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.004 4 1179 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.009 6 1129 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.014 8 1084 8.6 0.1 0.0 0.020 10 1054 8.1 0.1 0.0 0.025 15 984 7.1 0.3 0.0 0.040 20 922 6.2 0.6 0.0 0.056 25 868 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.073 30 820 4.9 1.6 0.0 0.091 35 777 4.4 2.3 0.0 0.109 40 733 3.9 3.2 0.0 0.129 45 691 3.5 4.3 0.0 0.150 50 649 3.1 5.8 0.0 0.173
But how many people are actually shooting steel at 1600 fps? I would bet not a majority.
Steel #3, 1450 fps Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec) 0 1450 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.000 2 1345 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.004 4 1260 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.008 6 1174 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.013 8 1102 7.7 0.1 0.0 0.019 10 1058 7.1 0.1 0.0 0.024 15 966 5.9 0.3 0.0 0.039 20 890 5.0 0.6 0.0 0.055 25 823 4.3 1.0 0.0 0.073 30 763 3.7 1.6 0.0 0.092 35 706 3.2 2.4 0.0 0.112 40 652 2.7 3.5 0.0 0.134 45 599 2.3 4.8 0.0 0.158 50 550 1.9 6.5 0.0 0.184
Bismuth #3, 1450 Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec) 0 1450 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.000 2 1363 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.004 4 1290 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.008 6 1214 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.013 8 1151 10.3 0.1 0.0 0.018 10 1096 9.3 0.1 0.0 0.024 15 1012 7.9 0.3 0.0 0.038 20 944 6.9 0.5 0.0 0.053 25 882 6.0 0.9 0.0 0.070 30 830 5.3 1.5 0.0 0.087 35 779 4.7 2.2 0.0 0.106 40 731 4.1 3.1 0.0 0.126 45 685 3.6 4.2 0.0 0.147 50 642 3.2 5.5 0.0 0.169
Regardless, kinetic energy is a bad predictor of shot effectiveness. Its boring cousin Momentum, and better yet Momentum Density (when correlating penetration) work better.
|
|
|
Re: Ethics?
[Re: yakinthebox]
#7717086
01/14/20 02:51 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154
KWood_TSU
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,154 |
KE is useful, but as zbot says, there's more to it than that. From what I gather it takes somewhere from 2-2.25 ft/lb to get a stone cold kill. Below are 3 pics from my book though. It shows you the similarities of KE between a 3" 4 steel, 5 bismuth, 6 lead that are shot with similar velocities. Look at the pellet difference in a 5 bismuth over 4 steel. Maybe that's why they say bismuth hammers so much harder than steel. The last pic is penetration difference of, I believe, #5 boss over #4 steel. Almost double the penetration at a slower velocity. Proofs in the pudding, or in this case, the ballistic gel.
Amat Victoria Curam - Victory Loves Preparation
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, TreeBass, txcornhusker
|