Steel vs. Bismuth vs. Lead | Shocking Waterfowl Ammo Ballistics Data
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 жов 2024
- This waterfowl ammo ballistics data blew my mind. Is it possible for steel or bismuth shot to be more effective than lead for duck hunting? If all things are equal, then no, of course not. But all things are not equal! Lead shot was banned 30 years ago and at that time all of the non-toxic alternatives were terrible, but we live in a different day and age. There is modern waterfowl ammo available that is MUCH cheaper than tungsten that can not only compete with lead but outperform it...
The New Hunters Guide podcast: www.newhuntersg...
Support the channel on Patreon: / thenewhuntersguide
Decoding The Marketing Hype Of Waterfowl Ammunition: • Decoding The Marketing...
Bismuth Vs. Steel Shot | Ballistics Gel Test: • BOSS Bismuth Vs. Steel...
BOSS Bismuth #2 vs. Steel #2 and BB Shot: • BOSS Bismuth #2 vs. St...
BOSS vs. FASTEEL Ballistics Gel Test: • BOSS vs. FASTEEL Balli...
Hunting Gear
Tetra Hearing Protection Free 2-Year Extended Service Plan: tetrahearing.c... Just add the Service Plan to your cart and use this code at checkout: NewHuntersGuide
Holosun 507K Red Dot Sight: amzn.to/3Ig9NyK
Muck Arctic Pro Boot - amzn.to/3HpqPpV
RedHead Rubber Boot - cabelas.xhuc.n...
Darn Tough Hunter Socks - amzn.to/3ROwrBo
First Lite Source Jacket - firstlite.pxf....
First Lite Furnace Long John - firstlite.pxf....
First Lite Furnace Quarter Zip - firstlite.pxf....
First Lite Kiln Crew - firstlite.pxf....
First Lite Kiln Long John - firstlite.pxf....
First Lite Tundra Balaclava - firstlite.pxf....
Sitka Fanatic Beanie - amzn.to/3HpnLu3
Cabela's MT050 Bibs - cabelas.xhuc.n...
Cabela's MT050 Parka - cabelas.xhuc.n...
Cabela's GORE-TEX Glomitts - cabelas.xhuc.n...
If you purchase something through the above affiliate links, it helps support the channel. Thank you!
Steel is absolutely crap in every sence , anybody that argues it needs some serious education in ballistics,, great video , only trouble with Bismuth is the price.
Lead all the way for me 👍👍
Thanks
Steel is fine but you lose 25% of the yardage so basically depends on if you are jumping rabbits , have to use non toxic etc. He sure made a good point.
@@curtiseggemeyer5681 you know mate 👍🍻
If you want to try some 1990 lead 12 gauge Federal 2 3/4” #6 “duck and pheasant” loads, 1 1/4 oz. I have 2 1/2 boxes left in my ammo storage. 3 3/4 drams powder equivalent. Also have a box of 3” #2 Federal magnum 1 5/8 oz. Max dram eq. Goose loads. I also used to hand load lead upland shot shells, 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 oz and most were loaded around 1250 ft/sec. I think I still have a few Remington 2 3/4” magnum #5s here somewhere. Those were my favorite shells when I could get them.
You know, a part of me would love to compare some of those #6 duck loads to current steel and bismuth loads. But I think the learnings would only be of nostalgic value to researchers and folks like us. Although, it still might be worth doing! lol.
Flight control wad would make all the down talk for steel look bad , however you are absolutely right. Only one BIG advantage is that you can load 240 pellets of steel instead 190 pellets of lead at the same payload. The problem is how soon you need them to leave the wad because from that moment the steel leaves the wad you have about 10-15yards before your steel numbers die. Reloaders can really make the steel fly the same way the lead fly without loosing speed , however the steel must be inside the wad for the majority of the flight that may bring you to another problem of to tight of the group .
I've done some recent pattern test videos that will air soon that got some great patterns from steel at 40 yards. The issue is, at that range, their knock down power is just unreliably low unless the shot size is so big that the pattern then becomes terrible, ha.
Perhaps the velocity of lead shot was higher than your assumption. I found my copy of The Duck Hunter's Handbook by Bob Hinnman. Chapter 4, Duck Loads shows much higher velocity for lead shot circa 1978 and 1979. I doubt they were lower in 1991.
That's the big misunderstanding, very few people used anything labeled or loaded as duck ammo. 90% ish was what we would consider today to be cases of bulk target loads but with #6 or #5 shot. It was cheap and plentiful so that is what most people shot. That info is from ammo manufacturers.
simply thanks from an old lead hunter. The new steel is amazing compared to the original in the 90s.. love the channel and thanks...
Thanks so much!
I used lead long before the ban. Most used 12 ga 2.75" #6 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 oz at 1200- 1350 fps. Even the 16 ga which I used a lot with 1 oz of lead #6 was running 1170 fps. Those were Remington , Winchester or Fiocchi and Eley usually around $7 -10 a box back in the day. My old pheasant load was 12 ga 2.75" 1.25 oz of #4 at 1300 fps ( Winchester Super X ) it folded wild Pheasants like they were hit by a brick.
That is a good Pheasant load even today!
Was an avid waterfowler when lead was outlawed. Manufacturers were ill prepared for the change. I was sold a box of #2 steel, shot a large Canada goose that already had his wings set to land in the decoys. At 10-15yds (max) i planted the shot directly in his chest and expected to see him disintegrate in front of me. Literally heard the shot hit him, feathers flew but he pumped his wings a few times and lifted off , never to be seen again. Standing there in shin deep mud, i didn't even fire a 2nd shot. Subsequently,, I dumped the 24 shells left in the trash and quit duck/goose hunting
Early steel was ineed pretty miserable stuff. But we have much better options available now.
Completely disappointing. I've done the same with ducks. This season . Several occasions I've shot ducks sitting on the water 20 to 30 yards out Completely covering the bird in shot just to watch it fly off like it was never touched feathers every where. 3.5 " #2 shot 1 3/8 oz really irritating
I tend to agree with you on the use of lead shot most hunters in the 1970's would use the cheapest and slowest lead loads or heavy loads travelling at 1100 or so fps. However, my friends and I always used #5 or #4 1-1/4 oz loads travelling at 1330 fps. These loads could easily down ducks and geese to 60 yards. Our loads consisted of WWAA 2-3/4 " hulls with extra hard lead shot and WW yellow wad, Win 540 powder or (HS-6) which is the same powder, WW 209 primer. Winchester says in there old reloading guide that this load is a ballistic equivalent to their 1-1/4 duck load. This load would definitely out perform any Bismuth or steel loads today. Unfortunately, we can't use this on waterfowl. Nevertheless, it's a great late season upland load.
Thanks so much Thomas! I can say without hesitation that you were definitely in the top 5% of the most serious waterfowl hunters and bought or engineered loads that were among the best possible in that era. My video focused more on the average hunter and shells. If I were going to compare best in era then I'd match your load against what is the best today which is 18.3 Tungsten. I wish I could find and buy #5 1-1/4 oz lead loads travelling at 1330 fps even today! I know they are out there but I wish I could find them for crows or pheasants now. Thanks!
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I've recently found Rio 1-1/4oz 1330fps in 4, 5 and 6 shot at more than one local retailer. Priced around $15-$17/box.
@@k.b.322 Steel?
*Thomas Gervais, I totally agree with your choice of loads, and how they would perform back in the day.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s 1 1/4 oz at 1330 was the standard lead load from Remington and Winchester that everyone I know used for pheasants and ducks. I still have several boxes from each manufacturer that I just don’t use anymore. In my opinion rooster pheasants are harder to kill than mallards and 1 1/4 oz of 4 shot out of a full choke was the only thing to use on late season pheasants.
Interesting, thank you for putting all of this data together and sharing!!
Thanks for watching!
I've been binging your channel again lately. I shoot a 28 gauge almost exclusively now. I picked up a press and a bunch of components to start reloading. BPI has been putting out some good data for steel, bismuth, tungsten, and lead. The crazy thing is some of the lead loads are 1500 FPS+. A bunch of people think those loads will blow out patterns or have some other detrimental side effects. Nonetheless, I am determined to launch a 11/16 oz payload at a dove of pigeon and see what chaos ensues. I have already harvested 100+ wild roosters with the little 28 and I am convinced with modern shotshell components, the mighty 28 will only be looking up from here. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much Kevin! The 28 is definitely living its best life. I hope it only gets better. I look forward to the day when I trade in the 12.
The 28 is an amazing all around shotgun! But not so much with steel shot. Bismuth is excellent and if you can afford it “tss”with a small payload around 1300 fps can do more than you need 😉
I made the switch from 12 gauge to 20 gauge and have had great success for the last 15 years on ducks , upland and geese. Now going to the 28 gauge and have pleasantly surprised with early results at the trap range! Looking forward to next hunting season. Shooting boss bismuth #5.
I was one of the first people to load"steel" over here in the 90's, as some of the manufactured loads did not completely open up and went through the pattern paper at 40yds like a bullet. It's a good job I did, as when we applied for our wildfowling licences we got 2weeks! Notice that we had to use steel. As no one over here had any information we found by trial and error that when hunting ducks over decoys no4's were best for the first two shots and 3's for the last shot; as their backs are very hard and the 4's are running out of steam at 35 yds. We were then back to getting the elusive "triples"! Using imp cyl chokes. We used 1/4 choke flighting with no 3's. So I can't see any point in using expensive shot for ducks. We use no 1's for decoyed geese and bb's for flighting with a 1/4 choke. I also have a 1 5/8 oz home made .20mm tin load with filler (buffer) that has downed geese at 70+yds with a full choke, and a 100yds with 3oz! out of my 8bore.
I'm very interested in more about tin loads!
Been using boss for 3 seasons. When i hit geese or ducks they are done no crippling anymore. It deforms on impact does sort of what a hollow point does just rips into em. No more chasing geese for me. Awesome video again. Pretty cool to see these comparisons
Thanks so much! What size shot are you using?
@@TheNewHuntersGuide i have cases of 2 3/4 #4. 2 3/4 #5 3" #3. 3" 2. So im covered for anything really. I love the #5's and number 2's
@@thedude-wb5vx Nice!
Excellent work! I started waterfowl hunting in the early 70's with a guy that liked 1 1/2 oz lead 4''s and several years later with a buddy that reloaded 1 1/4 oz 6's at 100 fps faster than factory (1250 vs 1150 fps). Lead had a deformation problem that one piece shot cups solved (mostly). Early steel (iron) shot loads were awful. I had to buy a new shotgun to shoot 3" shells to get any performance. With what was available in factory iron shot loading, I settled on 1 1/4 oz #3, which was ok as long as you kept the range to less than 40 yds. I only shot a few Kent bismuth but it was very effective. I don't hunt anymore, but it's good to hear they're effective loads available. My favorite waterfowl youtuber shoots Boss ammo and seems to get good performance.
Thanks so much Paul! Really appreciate it. BOSS is also my shell of choice in that price bracket.
Nice video.. Being a die hard waterfowl hunter for over 25 years since this nonsense lead ban.. I've used nothing but Federal Black Cloud in BB out of my Remington SP 10 ga shooting though a .720 Terror Choke Tube & it's been absolutely deadly on geese.. When I duck hunt I use my Browning Gold shooting 12ga 3inch Federal Black Cloud in #3's through a pattern master code black duck choke tube & it's been lights out devastating on ducks.. I see no reason to go back to lead at this point but it still is absolutely BS why they banned lead shot for waterfowl hunting..
Thank you sir!
20ga . All the shells look the same….😊
Just found this & although a couple years old the info is timely & appreciated. All my shotguns are vintage, pre lead ban 12 gauge 2 & 3/4 chambered. Other than the mid 1980's I didn't hunt waterfowl again until the past few years. Currently my go to gun for waterfowl is an old Browning Auto 5 with a long barrel & full choke. I've successfully downed ducks & geese with it the past several seasons putting steel shot thru it. Not wanting to further abuse the old war horse I've been looking to get bismuth going forward. Problem is, I live in Canada, it's impossible to even find factory loads locally & as a fellow Canuck mentioned, it's crazy expensive. I also have a vintage SKB gas operated semi with a full complement of chokes. It's lighter than the A5 not only because of the alloy receiver, but the barrel is not as beefy. I bought it new back in the day & don't wish to put steel thru it.
Anyhow, being a reloader I recently bit the pellet & ordered 7lbs of #1 bismuth.... just over Can$200, ouch. Not sure I plugged in all the data correctly, but my cost calculator spit out something in the order of $80/25 rounds....ouch ouch. Prolly should just go buy a new shotgun that can handle steel... Would have preferred to get #2 but like many reloading components these days, out of stock. The ducks & geese I bagged were with #4 & #7 steel. It will be interesting to see how my bismuth loads will perform this coming season. I used up my remaining supply of Blue Dot powder to load up enough shells for testing at the range & hunting. The load is out of the Lyman 5th edition, 1 & 1/4 oz with a published velocity of 1421fps. I've loaded mine 0.5 grains less than the published data so velocity may be a tad lower. I have a chrono so will see what happens next time at the range. Based on the data you've presented, if I do my part, I should be OK. Thank you!
With #1 bismuth you should be able to down anything that flies! A newer shotgun will probably save you more money in the long run under those ammo conditions, that is tough.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide If my aim is true, yes. I suppose the difference between #1 & 2 isn't that great but it does mean fewer pellets in the hull. ;)
Yea, I would lean towards 2s, but you can only use what you can get.@@MikeSiemens88
Very very interesting video!!! Good stuff!!!
Thanks so much Joshua!
You are the BEST, You tell the truth. I love your videos. I was waterfowling, mainly hunting Canada geese at that time period, the 80's using lead, then going into steel. We had much better success with BB steel over decoys and T steel pass shooting within 55 yds. All using 3.5" Magnum 12 gauges. We used to use 2 lead all the way to #4 buckshot on geese. NEVER had the success like we had with steel. Alot of these crabby old timers back then were stuck in there ways and never patterned there shotguns. I started testing Bismuth last season. #4's. I learned quick, geese over 25 yds. I better be using #2 Bismuth.
Thanks so much David! Much appreciated!
My grandpa gave me an old box of lead #6 waterfowl shells and it says 1350fps on the box. I now use them for turkey. But in comparison, I have some 12g/cc hevishot in #6 that is only going 50fps faster. EVERYTHING I hit with that goes down. I've dropped geese well past 40 yards with it. only problem is it is so darn expensive that I usually only have it as my 3rd shell if needed. I have cleaned ducks and geese that had #2 and BB pellets stuck in their fat, and then a bunch of smaller holes from the #6 hevishot. The most recent federal data accounts for a 30% wound/loss rate on ducks. I call BS on that and would guess it is at least 50%.
You know, I never thought about putting a higher performance shell as the second or third shell as a cost saving measure. That is a great idea! I would agree with you on the 50% loss rate. I'm hoping people who shoot better ammo can improve that some, that is part of my motivation for videos like this. Stepping up from steel can make a lot of difference
@@TheNewHuntersGuide the problem is price. I got a good deal on the hevishot years ago and I ration it like its gold now. I still shoot steel 90% of the time. Ive also shot bismuth and it is just okay compared to steel. Its difficult when it cost you $2-$4 every time you pull the trigger. Shotguns are not like rifles where you only need a few high end rounds per season to get the job done.
@@steveyd101 A bigger problem than price is availability! I can't get anything right now, even just single boxes to test. At my current rate of shooting, I should run out of season before shells, but I've got to make it a point to stock up in the off season.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide what a lot of people don't talk about is the amount of plastic pollution because of steel (less then lead) shot. talk to any old timer and they will tell you that it seems to take twice the shells to kill half the ducks. It seems to take one shot to knock a duck out of the air, and then another shot or two to put it out of its misery on the water. That is a lot of plastic shot shells floating around. Sure we try and pick them up, but we probably miss half of them. Between the greater wound/loss rate and plastic, I think lead is the lesser of the evils.
@@steveyd101 Alot of the shot cups are never picked up or even noticed. That is really a tough one.
very nice video.. now another factor is the pattern on top of the steel.. the pettern is way tighter then lead shot because it doesnt deform and fly all over the place... i use a Fabarm wich is designed for steel shot with full choke 86cm barrel 3" magnums 36grams 3 shot... and the pattern is very very tight... also the barrel lengt + choke gives even more velocity.. goose at 60 meters and beyond is no exception! even the older people say they woulnd even thought about shooting goose and ducks with lead shot where im taking them down with steel today!
What size steel?
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Rc Atomic Magnum number 3 shot.. is what i use and the pellets are 3.3mm.. we are not alowed to shoot any bigger pellet size here then 3.5mm.. yesterday i shot a goose standing on land.. 66 meters 1 shot no movement at all! i stepped it out specially for you! greetings from the netherlands!
@@MuskieZz Nice! I need to do more testing with #3s
I just found your videos today! Your videos are awesome! It just happens to be my birthday. These are the best present I have received so far today. LOL!!!
Haha, thanks David, you made my day! Glad they are of use to you. I have more like this planned. Thanks!
A lot of old lead loads were 1-1/8oz, 1-1/4oz, and 1-3/8oz as I bought a bunch old shells at gun shows years ago. I still have a lot of them since I can’t shoot clays with them. 4, 5, or 6 were the go to duck lead shot sizes. They were usually called duck and pheasant loads. You are right though, there is no crazy marketing on any of the boxes lol
What proportion would you say were #4 shot? I haven't seen much that big, even with pheasants today I would prefer smaller than 4 shot.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I could send you pics of the boxes if you want, just let me know. I’m on the eastern side of PA, but make a few trips out to western PA to hunt Erie area. If you’re interested, let me know, maybe we could do a hunt together. I have everything needed including a boat to get it done.
Don't know where you came up with 1,100 fps for lead...the old standard was 2 3/4" 1 1/4oz #4 at 1,330 fps....just like current pheasant loads. Look at old catalogs...I have catalogs from decades ago....I've been hunting ducks since 1976.
@@glenrutten5031 * I agree, and I started my duck hunting adventures back in the late 1950's. You want to hunt small ducks, shoot no. 6, but most duck hunters that I knew shot no. 4 or 5's. No. 4's were easier to find than no. 5's, and were preferred in the event that there was a chance to harvest a goose. I don't know anyone who would buy 1 1/8 oz. of lead shot ( 12 ga. ) to hunt ducks. The standard 12 ga. 2 3/4" shell carried 1 1/4 oz. of lead, but you could find 1 3/8, 1 1/2, 1 5/8, even as high as 1 7/8 oz. 3" magnum loadings ( there was no 3 1/2" chambering back in the day ).
His grafts are interesting, I would like to see actual real time data as opposed to a computer generated print out. A round projectile has terrible ballistics. When a round projectile is fired ( all things being equal except the velocity ), the faster it is launched the quicker it will lose velocity. Take an air filled balloon and hit it as hard as possible. Then take that same balloon and give it a gentle hit. Not much difference in the distance that each will travel. His graft doesn't rate the percentage of lost velocity or energy for each type of shot, if the shot size and velocity were all equal the lead shot group would out perform the other two. Of course, this is not a viable discussion, since lead is banned for waterfowl hunting, but it is still legal for most upland game birds.
As far as pheasant hunting is concerned, I will never shoot anything smaller than no. 4 or 5's lead shot at my birds. I have found that no. 6 is more of a crippler. I don't shoot pen raised birds, only wild free ranging birds primarily in Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas. Just my opinion.
Of those early years I hunted ducks with number 4 lead shot. Most was about 1100 fps because if it was loaded with faster speeds the lead pellets would deform and fly erratically causing poor patterns.
I now shoot number 2 steel at ducks with speeds of 1500-1550 fps. With the newer chokes you can get great patterns with steel and it is adorable to shoot. And it has been so long ago that I shot lead but it seams like the shells I use now are every but as effective as the old lead was if not even better.
I am not against bismuth at all and love the fact you are doing this. I am following your videos and may even switch in the future. I have seen in the bismuth that a lot of pellets were fragmenting when shot on paper. Those were some of the Hevi-Shot round that have a mix with steel and were traveling at 1500 fps. I have never shot any of the bismuth loaded at 1300-1350 fps.
I would love to see you make some charts though using steel number 2 shot at 1500-1550 fps for valid duck hunting comparisons!!!
Thanks so much! Alot of the modern high-performance steel really is pretty effective. I did do this gel test with #2 Steel, but I have crunched hard numbers on the ballistics charts for it yet. ua-cam.com/video/j-dQU2tYVzU/v-deo.html
Steel 2 would be about equal energy to the Bismuth 4 shown here. You're really only paying for the extra pellets (~70) gained when dropping in size. Also, Boss bismuth has copper plating alleviating most fragmentation.
@@crexhuntclub Thanks, its actually a little better even than that. Check out this test. ua-cam.com/video/PpU1REpCVzA/v-deo.html
I have a case of Winchester duck and pheasant load from back in the 1980s number four lead shot. I also have several boxes of Remington Express duck loads, number six lead. Number six over the decoys, and number four shot for passing. All 2 and 3/4 inch shells, 3-inch shells was cheatin'
Haha
hey thank you for the information. I'm very new to waterfowl. and everything associated with it. the charts and graphics help to make a ethical decision on what to buy or not buy. THANK YOU
Thanks so much for the feedback!
Good summation; thank you.
Thanks!
Just been checking my data- should have looked at my book instead of relying on memory. I quoted the steel in mm should have been GRAINS. Also my 8bore used to fire 3oz of lead now 2oz tin. If you need any more info - just ask . I am a Wildfowler through and through. Been fowling since the early 70's! Have built various guns. A 1 1/8" shoulder gun. A 1 1/4" punt gun and boat and the first O/U 8bore in the world. And a copy of Crowels decoy of a pintail preening, that sold for $319-00 in 1986. It would take some money to part with this.
Wow, impressive. Thanks so much for sharing and taking the time to watch my humble videos.
Bismuth at 3 times the price of steel. Here in Canada a box of #2 steel will be $23to30 box ,.. bismuth $66 to 90 box!
Well, it's not close to that much here. That kind of cost makes it not viable for most folks.
$90 us getting ridiculous, but if you're putting 2-3 shells into crippled steel shot birds the math comes around
The reason steel drops velocity faster is the velocity/drag function, drag goes up by the square of the velocity. and the only thing that can counter act this is initial mass.
That sounds correct to me.
Great video and the information was amazing. I load all my own waterfowl shells and maybe I’ll look at bismuth. I’ve been running TSS only but it’s costly but it’s awesome to see geese and ducks crushed and NO Cripples!!! I noticed from my extensive patten testing in the last five years the faster you go the harder it is to keep pattern density at 50 yards. I’ve been running 1 1/2oz out of clear 2 3/4 inch hull. It blow my mine how my buddies will see how effective it is at range but ask if I can do them in 3” mags lol. You try to explain you don’t need more shot or power so theirs no need to move up to that hull size. I only shoot a few hundred shells a year and the process of loading the hulls make me feel accomplished and I find the ack of loading relaxing and free’s me from the ammo regulations and restrictions!!!!
Man, if you can load your own TSS cost effectively for the amount you use, why do anything else. That's awesome!
@@TheNewHuntersGuide
That’s pretty much how I feel!
The only problem is pellet size and pellets count. Smaller shot size cause less trauma but allows for better penetration and speed retention. I loaded, chronograph, and extensively patterned TSS18 9 shot, 1 oz loads running out of 26” barrel, 1761, 1756, 1758 FPS on the three rounds choreographed. Patterns where very vertical and not very wide and required aiming a foot low out to 60 yards. Sounds cool but aim super low is hard to retrain yourself. Shooting over birds is extremely easy. I rather run a lot slower and have a great pattern. 1250 to 1350 is great with TSS and I killed a GPS tagged mallard last year at 60 plus yards Running 1365 fps. One thing not being touching on with denser metals is less pellet count per side per ounce, If you wanted to run five shot in TSS the pellet count is like 121 per oz. That horrible so jumping up to a duplex load at 1.5 oz is almost mandatory. You’ll see less pellets in bismuth versus steel per size. It won’t be dramatic like TSS but doesn’t have the knock down power either. Understand steel is 7.9 grain per cc and bismuth is 9.7 grain per cc and obviously TSS18 is 18 grain per cc, It’s a massive difference. The only thing that cool about bismuth is how it’s soft like lead providing dramatic wound channels dumping all its energy in your waterfowl. Steel and TSS don’t do that, if the energy is there TSS passes through and keeps going!
Good quality lead buffered # 4's in 2.75 hull weighing in at 1.25 oz at 1300-1350 was no comparison to bismuth. It was a hammer load on ducks and decoying geese.... Never mind the 3 inch 1.5/8 oz loads. Good old Fed Premium steel 3's are still my go to duck load as I have been using them for years and they just kill ducks if you choke it correctly. Keep up the good videos, I enjoy them even if we do not agree all the time.The steel in the early 90's was horrible. Probably killed more ducks than other load in a bad cripple way.
Hey thanks. I didn't mean to leave the impression that there were no high performance lead duck loads pre ban, just that the majority of ammo bought and used for waterfowl was similar to our lead target loads today because it was cheap and mass produced. Or at least that's what the ammo makers I talked with said.
My own experience with Federal Yds shot in a .410 shotgun was rather disappointing. I was using a Thompson Center Contender handgun over bags on a benchrest. Patterns were tight but erratic. I set up my chronograph at 3' from end of muzzle. Measured each time.before each shot. I got anywhere from 874 to 1204 fps. The barrel length was 10". I had 2 different boxes, 2 different Lot #'s. Penetration on old plywood with #9 yds was around the same as #6 lead shot. Moving on average 935 fps.
Wow, with readings that erratic, patterning is mostly an act of semantics. You would just need to hope with every trigger pull that the next shot would give you what you needed!
Great info, this should open some eyes.
Thanks so much!
Kent tungsten 13/8 number 3 is what I shoot in my Superposed. Pricey yes but you shoot less shells. Pre 91 I reloaded #5 at 13/8 1350 ft per sec. Cost about $2 per 25.
I just wish ammo prices would go back to where they were 3 years ago, let alone 1991!
Fine video, and good that somebody actually compare realistically. I do think though that to be fair to steel shot, then it should be number 3 steel compared to 4 bismuth and 5 lead. I mean, two shot sizes bigger than lead steel shot holds about the same amount pellets pr. ounce and will be close to the same weight pellet wise and deliver in genreal a better pattern. Another thing is penetration. Not only will air resistance be less for smaller pellets weighing the same as bigger pellets - they also penetrate deeper. So the video is very simplified, but the message is fine. Modern steel shot will do the job if you shoot within normal shooting distances. If you are capable of hitting at greater distances then bismuth will be as good as standard lead loads were. Problem with lead and bismuth is getting enough pellets on target past 45 - 50 yards. Here TSS comes in as they will most likely give you a better, denser pattern on long ranges - just like steel will within normal ranges due to the fact that that hard kind of shot doesn't deform and is kept in special designed wads that hold the shot together all the way though the barrel - and often a bit more.
Thanks! Even overly simplified, the video was still too long. ha. I am planning some long range test videos this summer to see what is really possible at extended ranges with pattern and gel tests. There comes a range with every load that either the pattern or power run out. We'll see what Bismuth and probably even TSS can do.
This was a good video, man. Well done.
Thank you so much!
Such a great video- I appreciate the work you put into this!
Thank you so much!
Just found your channel and love it! Not going to make any criticism of this great video, just a quick observation, I have some boxes of waterfowl loads from the late 80s that are still price stamped at $499 a box of 25 and chilled 25# lead shot bags same time period priced at $5 a bag. I know everything goes up and availability is next to nill right now but bismuth is anything but cheap. Also chokes can very a great deal between different load types.
Hey thanks so much! 3 years ago I was able to go to Gander and get a case 250 target loads for $50. This past year I think I paid $220 for the same case... It hurts more than just the wallet. Bismuth has gone up also but not more than the rest of the market. It is crazy though.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I have been loading/reloading 12 gauge for 15 years now and every component is hard or impossible to find plus price gouged to the moon. Keep the shotgun content coming I know it can get hard sometimes and don't let the negative comment people bother you👍
@@Maddad_39 Thank you so much sir! There is more coming. I have two shotgun videos prepped to record now, and then more ballistics get videos ready to record once the weather breaks. Just working through some cold weather gear content presently.
Cost is a factor, but I am ready to dust off my old Weatherby full choke 2 3/4 in 12 gauge. When I shot it with lead loads, it was a duck killing machine. Had to quit shooting it for ducks in 1993 after it started taking steel shot damage and the performance wasn’t there. This year I ordered some Boss 2 3/4 #5s and will try to reclaim the magic. Just being able to shoot that gun for ducks again will be worth the extra cost of ammo. I am looking forward to not having the toothaches this year that I got from the recoil of my Rem 870 shooting high speed steel last season. Killed ducks, but felt like 10 rounds with Mike Tyson after a day in the duck blind.
#4 lead was EASILY the most common shot size for general waterfowl. #2 specifically for geese. 6’s were pretty rare. Some of the old boys used 7 1/2 for head shots on geese. They claimed that if they missed the head/neck, the shot wouldn’t wound the geese. I started hunting in the 90’s, Southern Ontario, Canada. Our lead ban didn’t start until the late 90’s.
I didn't talk with any ammo makes in Canada when I did the research for this video, so that's worth noting. But I did talk with ammo makers and they said by and large the most used ammo for waterfowl were what we would consider today to be #6 target loads. Sometimes #5s. They weren't labeled waterfowl ammo, just #6 lead game loads. They were the most used because they were the cheapest ammo available that would do the job. Even today, #7.5 target loads at 1 1/8 ounce can be bought for $80 a case of 250 in the right places. A case of average steel shot is going to run $200. Today we use the same kind of cheap bulk lead shells for crow hunting that they used for waterfowl.
Here in California, #5 lead was very common for duck, but that might be because a lot of people bought #5 for both duck and pheasant (instead of buying #4 and #6). Basically, you could buy a few boxes of #5s heading into Fall, and that would see you through the waterfowl season, too. But you're right about #4 lead still being common. On mixed hunts, my dad and grandpa would usually carry #5 in the chamber, #4 first out of the tube (for follow-up and longer shots), and #2 last out of the tube (in case they ran into geese).
We never used steel because we only had vintage guns, but several guides told us that they were instructing their hunters to upsize to #2 steel for duck. When bismuth became available, it was dedicated for waterfowl (no pheasant or upland game), so we only bought #4 for duck and #2/BB for geese.
1-1/4oz of #4 shot 1250ft/sec is what I shot and 90% of everyone I knew. The lead load velocity on the chart needs to be moved up to probably 1220fps for 3-3/4 Dram Eq. Shells and 1300fps for Max Dram shells. And, Winchester did have Duck & Pheasant loads. Also, on the back of boxes, it had a reference guide that matched shell to the game animal/bird.
@@kevinfontenot4177 We used to run the 1-1/2 oz Remington Nitro Mags in #2 and #4. I don't ever remember seeing the FPS back then, but I've seen more recent data showing 1,260 fps. I think I still have some stored away, but I'm pretty sure I don't have the original boxes anymore.
@@newscoulomb3705 Hodgdon load reference is full of fine 1-1/2oz. 1260fps. I loaded for myself, dad, and brother one shell that we used for duck, rabbit, squirrel, and turkey. A 12ga 2-3/4” Winchester SuperX reload of 1-1/4oz #4 1250-1300fps. If I could legally kill everything again that this one lead load brought home, I’d be a very happy man.
Also, if you will notice, you will not find no “pressure” listed on the box of shells. This “over pressure” talk is a relatively new thing. It must have came to be with steel shot.
You can get tin shot over here ,BUT as it is lighter than steel it causes problems, when pushed at higher velocities , by causing "cold" welding in the bottom of the cup. I make 4.4grn tin by using pure tin solder in 3.25 mm dia cut to length then melting, with bees wax as a flux, on a dimpled aluminium sheet making a 100 at a time. If you get the depth right they look like little flying saucers with top and bottom equal. As they look also look like pearls I call them "pearl shot" . Iv'e shot a lot of decoyed geese with these as they pattern great, even that they are not round because they "fly" with the least resistance edge ways on. Got a 85% pattern at 40yds with 1/2 choke.
Thats amazing. Never thought about that. Thank you.
Woww, amazing video🔥
It is super helpful and needed.In my country lead shot is still legal for waterfowl and what is crazy is that most of duck hunters here use 1 1/4 oz #1 shot lead at 1300fps.
Are you serious? There isn't a bird in the sky I would shoot #1 lead at! haha. If I could use lead, I would probably use Lead #5 for most ducks and #4 for Geese. But I'd use #6 for small ducks and general early season use.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Yess exactly. Some of old hunters use even BB lead for ducks and rabbits, when they see me and some other guys using #4 lead 1 1/8 oz they say to us "Are you hunting pigeons or what?!" 😅
@@Mr.vlord11 BB lead for ducks? Are they going for pass through shots lol
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Probably yes 😂, nobody here uses decoys and duck calls, just walking by the river spotting the ducka amd try to get as close as possible and shoot them, 45-60 yards.
@@Mr.vlord11 Well, that is a different game there, use a turkey choke, lol.
You have good info and enjoy many of your videos. The one thing I haven’t heard you say is at what range does it become unethical to hunt with the various materials.
Thanks! I hate the idea of subjective ethics, which is where that answer typically goes. So, I try to turn it into Math. For me, I consider ethical shots to have a minimum of 100 pellets in a 30" circle with a minimum of 3" of penetration at whatever range you plan to shoot with whatever ammo you plan to use. Thats my criteria, someone else may have different criteria, but this is where I draw the lines for me. So typically that results in a steel #4 at 40 yards, Bismuth #4 at 55 yards, TSS #9 at 70 yards. But there are many variables and factors, too many to mention really, which is why you gotta test your ammo.
What about upland loads they make Kent fast lead that goes 1475 ft./s #4 shot
They also make standard lead loads that go 1300 ft./s for upland bird hunting
All true. But the comparison I was going for was what was used vs. what is used. Of course lead technology has developed over the last 30 years too, but my goal was really to compare the nostalgia with the modern realities of what we can and do use now.
Great video!
Thanks for the hard work. It is greatly appreciated!
PS. Federal makes a Bismuth 3” shell that shoots at 1450 fps.
I use them the #3 shot for waterfowl and it’s probably the best waterfowl shell I’ve ever used at around 30-40 yards.
Expensive as heck, but performs like hell.
I also like the Kent Fasteel 2.0
They’re reliable under 40 yards and I do not get cripples as long as I aim well.
Thank you much! I appreciate it.
@Helterskelter
At what cost? $5 per shot?
No thanks.
What’s crazy is that a 3.5” 1.5 ounce payload of BB steel, won’t even match the performance of a 2 3/4” 1.25 ounce payload of #4 lead in terms of pellet count and penetration. Not only that but you have to put up with wayyyyy more recoil which also hurts the accuracy of follow up shots greatly. You’re also looking at $1.30 per round vs $0.45.
Steel is just not a great material for shotgun shot. The answer is to try and limit shots to short/med range. Its fine there. But to try and punch out any further, you have to pay more get that range back.
It would be interesting to see the same data on steel #2 vs Bismuth #4.
Yup, I did that test actually, here you go ua-cam.com/video/PpU1REpCVzA/v-deo.html&
You can drop birds all day with steel but the tougher the bird the more likely you don't make a kill shot... I've noticed that with a lot of pheasants this year, switched over to bismuth but I could only find 3' mags. Would love a box of 2 3/4 bismuth, 2 3/4 shells recoil so lightly through my sx4 it's like shooting a 20 gauge lol
I am considering switching to 2 3/4" for next season. Alot of advantages there.
Nice work and clearly shows the outcome of basic physics in action. Jim Muller of Muller chokes would say that the fast speeds destroy patterns. Would be good to see work comparing the patterns of these different materials at 40 yds. Of course, looking at all the shotguns and choke combinations is an overwhelming task. Joel Strickland, as I'm sure you know, has done a lot of good of work in this regard. In other words, downrange energy is critical but only if you can get at least 100 pellets on target.
Thanks so much! I've talked to both Joel and Jimmy, they are both top notch. I'm hoping to do more testing in this area.
Great explanation
Thank you so much!
I just recently finished off a box of old Rem Duck/Pheasant 1-1/4 oz loads in lead target practicing just to empty the shells. I loaded my re-loads back then at 1400 fps with #4 lead. Pheasant-Duck-Goose-turkey killers. One load for all, one shot drops. But we always kept our shots under 40 yards. I shot geese this year with 3 1/2" reloads in 1-1/2 oz #4 steel at 1380 fps. Again, 1 shot drops.
As long as you keep it under 35-40 yards, just about any modern steel load will kill ducks and geese. Number 2 lead was the real killer back then as well, and is far ahead of any modern load in ballistics. We could buy #2 lead just about anywhere back then. Hardly ever see it now days.
What was the posted velocity on the factory box? I love the idea of a 1 round for everything. Working on different choke options to see if BOSS could maybe be that.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide They didn't post velocity back then, just dram equivalent. 3 3/4 dram.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I've come to the conclusion a different shell for different game and situations is what works now days.
@@bgdesignandsolutions Sounds right. Thank you.
I weighed some individual pellets. Steel, Boss bismuth, and federal lead . I found the boss bismuth to weigh the same as lead. The Boss are not perfectly round but are nicely polished and accurate pellet counts. I was surprised to see how close to lead weight they were.
I've found that no bismuth or TSS/Steel blends are perfectly round, steel is better but not perfect. Only lead and TSS seem to be perfectly round most of the time.
@TheNewHuntersGuide yes I agree. The cheap steel loads are also not round. Premium steel is and so is the fiochhi. I enjoy your content and I also study ballistics quite often as well
@@derekbeyers8804 Thank you so much!
Lead ammo back in the day was 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 ounce. Unless you shot 3” magnum. That was 1 7/8 ounce.
Do you have any samples you could point me to? I couldn't find anything loaded that high in a common load. I know some could and did load it that high, but I didn't find any mainstream examples in my search.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I have in my possession several flats (10 boxes) of Federal “Duck and Pheasant “ loads in 7.5, 6 and 4 shot. These are 1 1/4 ounce. Also have 2 3/4” magnum 6 and 4 shot with 1 1/2 ounce. All the major manufacturers made these in the day. I was a kid in the 60s. Probably don’t make it anymore.
@@snake57 thank you!
Yeah man dad has a few bowed of 1 7/8oz lead goose loads. Also I can reload lead 1 1/4oz of any shot size at 1385fps or 1 1/8 at 1500fps. Look up load data for long shot powder.
Correct 12 gauge 3 in bb was 1 & 7/8 oz...and very potent...and 10 gauge was loaded 2 & 1/4 Oz...very good rounds from back in the day
Thanks for such a great and informative video. The best way of comparison. A pattern exhibition would complete this debate
Thanks so much! Got lots of pattern tests in the works and coming soon.
Been really impressed with the bismuth dove loads
Which ones?
@@TheNewHuntersGuide The hevi-shot heavy hammer dove. They are a hybrid bismuth steel.
Effectively, the faster you go, the effort required to push that shot through the air increases massively, if you're sing steel, just go up one or two sizes bigger shot, more energy..... , keeping the shot weight similar, or the same gives very similar numbers of pellets in the pattern. Massively fast steel with huge loads in 3, 3 and a half inch cartridges, is just a willy waving contest for folks to do in the duck blind 😄
Exactly. The faster you try to push steel, the faster it loses velocity right out the gate.
3.5 inch shells came about because you needed bigger shot size with steel, which means you don’t get as much on target, but with 3.5 you get more per load. That and 10 gauge was getting phased out essentially.
@@mdunc189 I understand there's a need for shooting longer ranges with bigger shot for high birds, I meant more that the average shooter either decoying, or even shooting at reasonable ranges doesn't need that kind of load, and if they feel that they do, I'd wager that they've never shot at the pattern plate to see how they cartridges actually pattern.....
@@danebrewer10 Also, I think alot of people shooting 3.5" also don't realize that they would be better shots with a smaller load. Very few people can handle big shells like that as well as they can 3" or 2.75", usually only people who are very experienced shooters and those of very large physical build. Ironically, most of the people who are able to shoot a 3.5" shell well, elect not to because they are good enough to do the job just as well with smaller less expensive loads. Too many people shoot oversized shells because they think it makes them tough or super hardcore and they can take "even more" birds, and they don't realize they are taking fewer birds because their flinch reflex and ability to take good follow-up shots are hurting them.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide I couldn't agree more, I patterned some 36g 3" and 32g 2.75"loads the other day and the recoil was stout in an OU to say the least, to spend a whole day shooting those not through an auto doesn't fill me with deep joy 😄
Totally impressed , very good , it makes sense but hunters in general get a mindset that bismuth won't touch lead which is definitely not true.
Thanks so much!
Good video but really should have used #4 Lead 1.25 oz at 1330. That was the standard lead load for ducks of everyone I knew or hunted with here in MI. I'm a Firearms dealer and the only 1100 FPS lead I sold was 1-1/2 or 1-7/8 #2 or BB not in 1.125 (1-1/8) oz unless it was a light trap load. I still have some old Remington Duck and pheasant ammo that is 1-1/4 #4 and #6 at 1330fps from the 70's. Modern steel will get the job done but does not compare to our old 2-3/4" 12ga lead duck load.
I talked with ammo manufacturers to get my lead load insights. I think to your point, most waterfowl hunters were probably using target loads instead of more expensive loads marketed for waterfowl.
target loads are #9, #8 or #7.5. None of which would be useful for ducks and geese. It’s your story and I appreciate your videos but I am guessing you never hunted waterfowl with lead shot In The 70’s. If you did you would know that the 1330fps 1-1/4 load was the standard that the majority carried. Some were shooting 3” magnums which were never really necessary with lead.
@@melvinspencer376 no, I certainly was not hunting anything in the 70s. The only data I can point to is what research I can find. There are no conclusive records to really be found on the subject. Everyone seems to remember things a little differently. Math is easy for me, documenting purchasing trends from before the internet existed is not!
The average load used in waterfowling pre-92 was 1150fps for 1.5oz loads to 1330fps for 1.25oz loads, which was my fave in 6-shot. These btw were in 2.75" shells.
The word "average" is probably not being used appropriately by any of us around this topic. What you are describing was perhaps an average performance duck load. But in terms of the gross number of shells fired at ducks, payloads, velocities, and ultimately the price of the shells were lower, similar to today's target loads. Today the most produced waterfowl load is going to be your Winchester Super X or other entry level steel loads, but many of the most engaged hunters are going to use higher performance steel like Fasteel or HeviSteel or denser materials.
The modern day ammo I prefer now are Boss short mags in 3 for geese and 5 for ducks. The most overall successful for me otherwise was the original hevi metal (NOT the current version!) Happily I'd sprung for 2 flats in #3
Part 2...in 3" 3s before it was unhappily discontinued. I still have around 6 boxes of this that I use sparingly.
@@josephbastien8006 Thanks, have you tried the HEVI 12s?
Not yet, but they look promising right? 12g tungsten I hear!? Should be good stuff. Thanks!
And I really like the videos!
Great Video! Would like to see the same comparison but No.3 Steel 1500fps
vs No.4 Bismuth 1350 fps. Back in the day I reloaded No.6 lead at 1275fps.
Thanks so much. I haven't run those exact numbers but I did do gel testing with Bismuth #4 vs Steel #4 vs Steel #2. ua-cam.com/video/PpU1REpCVzA/v-deo.html
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Co
Cool, I like #3 steel early season then switch to #2 steel late season.
@@shawnmccallion5436 Cool. I was doing very similarly till I found that BOSS #4 had more penetration than both of them, it was actually about equal to Steel #1. Now I only use steel when I'm running out of bismuth loads lol.
Most duck hunters shooting steel are using 2 shot not 4. Better penetration but a lower pellet count, and still not a great choice.
Depends on what you are hunting and where. But my research showed steel #4 as the most produced and purchased shot size. Now I do not have last year's production records from all the major manufacturers to 100% confirm that. But I did research the question, and #4 was answer I got. I'm not saying it is what I would use for everything. But it's what my research turned up.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide That is surprising. Most guys I know using steel are shooting 2. And the general consensus on steel shot was to go 2 shot sizes down from lead to steel, so 4 lead to 2 steel.
I'm using 2 3/4 #4 boss and as long as I'm on target, the ducks drop clean.
I also shot Kent bismuth 4 a few years ago. I found it patterned better than Boss, but prices went up so I switched.
Totally agree. Been shooting Bismuth on all birds bigger than a dove for the last three years. Your charts on energy really show the bottom line…..
Thanks!
From memory which Take with little value back a while ago shot shells weren’t really game specific they were just specified by your shot size weight and brass hight and length. You wanted to hunt a species you grabbed a shot size that should work pattern it and go
From what I have pieced together in my research, most people hunting ducks were doing so with essentially target loads. Basically, just labeled as cheap all-purpose shells with #6 or #5 shot. They don't really do that anymore, because they can make more money putting a picture of specific animals on the boxes and adding a little more velocity. When waterfowl shot became non topic. alot of things shifted in shell production and marketing. Now there were specific, high powered lead waterfowl loads, but the vast majority of hunters used the cheapest thing they could which we would equate to target loads today, with bigger shot. So that seems to line up exactly with what you are saying.
This is an excellent video!
Thank you so much!
Interesting data, I’m sure there are other people like me watching your videos comming from the upland bird background. A lot of public ground is going non toxic and we are looking for alternatives to lead. Modern lead is a different animal it’s way would be a duck load if allowed. I have a box of copper plated buffered lead that goes 1500 fps and it really whacks pheasants. My research for anyone interested shows that if you shoot premium lead 4’s you can get the same performance from bismuth 3’s and close to the same from steel 2’s only problem is to get the pellet count of the lead 4’s to steel 2’s you need to go to a 3.5 inch shell to fit it all in. Us upland guys would like some comparison videos along those lines
Thanks Joseph, so you would like to see some more Lead vs alternative loads? What are the most common lead shells you use for upland birds?
I typically use federal premium or fiochi golden pheasant copper plated or nickel plated 1 3/8 ounce 5’s early 4’s late around 1450-1500 fps. Many people use the cheaper 4-5’s high brass at 1350. That would be a pheasant load I think that’s typically where longer shots happen in wetland areas
@@josephfischer9382 Thanks. I am hoping to do more with pheasant loads this coming season. I just need to find the ammo!
Hercules powder load book 1992. Has listings for 4 dram= loads at 1350 fps. 1 3/8oz. 1-1/2 oz at 1280 fps. Hope this info helps.
Oh yea, they had those loads. But by far the most sold and used loads, according to ammo manufacturers, were essentially what we would consider #6 target loads. Labeled as game loads, not waterfowl. They were cheap and mass produced.
Very interesting and educational.
Thanks so much!
That’s awesome information. So what I gathered was as long as you keep your shots inside 40 yd the performance of steel and bismuth is very similar. Enough the average shooters can’t tell, the problem lies where people stand around and watch 5min of skeet shooting and then go out and try to shoot 50+yd and want to complain about misses and say how great of a shot they are and blame the ammo.
Thanks Justin. Actually, I'd say within 30 yards, the performance of steel to bismuth will produce comparable results. By 40 yards, the power loss on steel is massive. That is what first drove me down the road of denser than steel options because I felt like I was shooting saw dust out of gun at 35 yards. Bismuth #4 has more power than Steel #2 at 40 yards.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide, the chart you showed for energy of bismuth was 0yd 15.6, 10yd was 11 something . . . and so on. What unit was the measurement of energy? Foot pounds of energy?
@@justinferguson5451 Yes, I believe it is foot pounds, per pellet. Once you get below 3 or so, I've found that effect in the field falls off really fast. For the realistic loads, Steel #4 is right at 3 at the 30 yard mark. At 40 yards bismuth is still at 3.1
Excellent video! How did you generate this data? Were the shot velocities chronographed or calculated? I'm trying to make an air resistance model based on shot size, metal density, and muzzle velocity to more or less recreate this data for specific loads, but I can't get my model to match other people's chronograph data
Thanks! Most of this data came from ballistics tables I had access to. I had to do some work to get it into graph form but it matches my real world testing results pretty well. Nothing will ever match 100%, there are too many variables from wads to weather.
What are the units on the energy graphs? Thanks for running these tests - great vid.
Thanks! That should be energy foot pounds per pellet.
Be interesting to find out what a newer powder like longshot would do with tungsten or bismuth. I know the loads I do for crows have performed at 60-80 yards with a super full choke for me. Longshot is some serious powder.
What are its benefits relative to what is being commonly used now?
You need to look up the first steel shot shells. They were same speed as lead and really sucked. Hi speed steel didn't come out till late 1990's We had to buy hi speed steel from custom reloaders.
Oh yea, early steel was kinda like shooting saw dust out of you gun....
Standard duck load in the old days was a 2-3/4" hull with 1-1/4 ounce of #5 lead moving 1350 FPS (basically your modern pheasant load). As a matter of fact, a lot of companies put pheasants and ducks on the same box of ammo.
All that being said and everything you've pointed out. The marginal ballistic advantage of Bismuth isn't worth the added cost (IMO).
Thanks
Actually 1979-80 was the final year for lead shot for waterfowl. I know this because at 12years old I had one season to use lead. 1981 hunters were scrambling around looking for this new “steel”shot to be able to continue hunting ducks. It was a crazy time for sure!! So 1981, was the first lead prohibited year, not 1991🙂
Well, I am not sure how to respond to that. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service says it was 1991 www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/nontoxic-shot-regulations-hunting-waterfowl-and-coots-us
@@TheNewHuntersGuide okay I understand that now. 1991 for nation wide ban. WI was 1981. I really don’t remember exactly how the laws were in the beginning but I think it was area specific. Like water ways or something that. I will do some research. Things were definitely a little bit crazy when it all started
Thanks for all the videos! Good stuff 👍🏻
Good point, some states did start sooner. Just as some are starting to ban all lead hunting ammo now.@@MichaelLakota-vc4tk
I used standard #4 lead 11/4 oz at 1330 fps before the band I don't know where you got these loads from? But I agree that now days bismuth shot is pretty good but tss duplex loads are where the best is today. Good vidio tho
Thanks. I got the load specs from researching market laods and talking to owners of shotgun shell manufacturing companies.
The other useful factor with steel is the bigger pellets like 1s and 2s can choke down to be realy useful pass shooting duck loads.,where the inadequate energy of no4 is negated ,which is why if you think carefully and choose your shot size carefully steel shot will outperform most hunters using it.I handload and find no1 to be a great pass load for mallard/widgeon at around 1450fps. BBB steel at 1600fps is deadly for passing geese.
How many pellets of that size are you getting in your shells?
What about the powder improvements from 1991? The faster velocities are not usually from just adding more powder, it's from the progression of the powder technology. If you gave lead the same powder charge found in the bismuth loads wouldn't the lead be better?
Yea, of course that is a good point. I'm looking at it from a velocity standpoint. Pre 1991 loads were not limited to around 1100 fps by the powder. Many handloaders could and did load them faster. So while there are better powders today, that was not necessarily a limitation that set the velocity levels pre-ban. It was very possible to make them faster but very few companies did. And as many people have showed me since this video went live, most companies did not even print the velocity numbers on the boxes back then. The average hunter was unconcerned with velocities pre-ban. And I think that to some extent modern powder innovation has been driven by the velocity craze that ensured to try and make steel shot more effective.
You are dealing only with velocity and energy. However, there is another factor just as important: the hardness of bismuth pellets. I tried them many years ago after I realized that first-generation steel shotshells were a disaster. But the first generation of bismuth shells was even worse. The pellets were friable. Many broke up in the barrel and those that hit feathers, skin, fat and muscle failed to penetrate into the vitals because they fragmented on impact. I don't know if later bismuth-based pellets have been rendered more cohesive and impact-resistant. I doubt it and do not want to experiment on live game, which I respect too much to throw dubiously effective and possibly crippling payloads at them. I have shot winged ducks at TEN YARDS with bismuth shells in the past, and when my Labrador was eventually able to catch and retrieve them I found a great number of bruises on their skin, but no entrance wounds. That was enough for me. Ballistic gelatin is not like the tough layers of feathers, skin, fat and muscle of a duck. I could not care less if bismuth penetrates the gelatin even to the depth of 8 inches or more. All I know is that--considering the limited number of shells used while duck hunting if bag limits are respected--one can spend a bit more and purchase shells with tungsten-alloy pellets. After all, duck hunting IS expensive, and ten or fifteen more dollars--even twenty--for a box of shells that have a record of extreme lethality on large ducks up to 50 yards is still a bargain, and does not leave you with the bitterness in your mouth when you cripple a duck and are unable to finish it off and retrieve it. Bismuth, the main component of Pepto-Bismol is a great mineral when you have the runs, but for duck hunting is just no damn good.
A note on the Hyper-Velocity steel shotshells, which you mentioned. I tried on paper those produced by Remington. The excessive velocity and the consequent violent impact with air resistance dispersed the pellets too much, despite the wad that enclosed them for the first few yards of their trajectory. Out of a Remington shotgun and using several Remington chokes, at 30 yards the pellets were always so dispersed thata large mallard could have passed unscathed through the empty holes in the pattern, and if it had been hit at all, certainly would not have been hit by the canonical 3 or 4 pellets necessary to produce enough shock for a clean kill. I must add--though irrelevant in dis discussion--that the recoil of these shells was truly intolerable.
All of the above IMHO, obviously. But my humble opinion has been formed from the year when lead was banned for waterfowl hunting by years and years of duck hunting and trying all the alternatives to lead, from steel, to bismuth, to the old "Hevi-Shot," an alloy of steel, nickel and tungsten much harder than steel and considerably heavier than lead. And that alloy kills ducks, also because its higher specific weight allows you to use smaller-size shot which still penetrates more than bigger-size lead shot, but at the same time produces much denser patterns that hammer ducks with multiple hits and, consequently, incredibly lethal effects.
I think your view of Bismuth could be upgraded some due to the massive leaps made in technology in the last 15 years. Modern bismuth pellets are in fact an alloy with about 3% tin or other material that makes them less brittle and enables the pellets to deform on impact more like lead which results in less bouncing off bone like steel experiences. The community of waterfowls who use almost exclusively bismuth is large and vocal about its efficacy. There are several brands putting out very effective loads, some copper plated, some tin plated, that have well documented performance on game that is exemplar. Tungsten blends can be better. I'm planning to do a test with one tomorrow to find out more.
I don't know where guys were using lead 6 shot for duck back in the 90's, lead 4 shot is what everyone I know was using for duck and lead 2 shot for geese.
Really? Lead 4s? The same shot size people use for body shots on turkeys?
Great video! Can you bring apex loads into your testing? They are a somewhat affordable tungsten option.
Hey, thanks so much! I am a fan of Apex in general, hopefully at some point in the future I'll be able to get my hands on some of their shells.
Those 1700 fps loads must be brutal on recoil….
I don't want to hunt with them. That's for sure.
Good stuff 👍👍
Thank you! Cheers!
I would like to see this done with giving lead the fair sake of modern lead. It would be interesting to see the difference of what we could have. Look at federal prairie storm. 1350 with 6 shot 1 5/8 load
Thanks Keaton. I will see if I can get the data for the example you listed. That is pretty close to my preferred pheasant load. And that is probably what I would use for waterfowl if lead was an option.
2024, and now bismuth is so expensive, I'm looking towards steel shot again. Shooting tungsten means I have to have a second job.
It’s amazing how ammo companies market steel shot. “Heavy this”&“Fast that”, all geared to take your money. Always remember you can put lipstick on a pig & the end of the day it’s still a pig. Folks let’s smash that thumbs up button for George, working hard to save us money!!!!
Thank you so much!!!
It was in the 80’s when the Feds band lead for waterfowling .
They began phasing in steel shot in 1987 but the federal ban became official in 1991 under G.H. Bush. www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/hunting/nontoxic.php
Maybe consider psi as a calculation. #5 shot with equal energy to a #4 shot will have more penetration
Tell me more about factoring in PSI?
Now keep in mind guys if you are going to shoot steel in a older fixed choke gun, that steel load should not exceed 1400 FPS, No pressure higher than 10,733 PSI, no shot size bigger than #5, for a 1 oz load and no choke tighter than half or modified. For a 1 1/8 oz load same specs but the velocity needs to be reduced to 1250 fps. Do not shoot any steel load that says "High Performance" or 'High velocity' on the box. The gun is not going to blow up but it will not appreciate the abuse.
Good warning. Thank you!
For hunting, It’s 10% the ammo and 90% “shoulder-to-holder.” It’s more so the man that knows how to lead and squeeze a scatter gun and less of the type of shotgun ammo he’s using.
I agree in principle and have made videos on that exact subject.
I enjoyed watching your test. I’ve killed a lot of ducks with lead, steel, bismuth & TSS. I’d happily shoot lead over any other shot. TSS is superior to all shot. However, it’s expensive and destructive to older shotgun barrels.
One thing your test doesn’t take into consideration is shot deformation. I believe that the deformation of lead shot gives it the killing edge that bismuth just can’t achieve. I have good success with bismuth out of my old guns. BOSS sets the standards for bismuth. I can hand load tss for about the same price as their shells.
Steel cripples far too many ducks no matter what velocity. I’ve never liked it and never will. The only thing steel has going for it is a cheap price tag.
Anyone ever wondered why lead fishing weights are legal over 30 years after lead shot was banned?
They are slowly banning fishing weights actually. Deformation is hard to test, gel doesn't tell the whole story and shooting dead birds isn't particularly viable. We need to find a better way to test and measure that.
Lead was actually banned for waterfowl in 1981 40+ years ago. And steel was very expensive when it first came out because of special wads and hulls to produce- It sucked all around. Expensive and very hard to find the first few years 🫤🫤🙁
Very Eye Opening.
Thank you so much!
The only slight criticism is that with steel you're supposed to go up two shot sizes. But you did show the energy numbers so it don't matter too much. Are these super fast loads in 3 inch shells?
Thanks so much. Yes, everything I quoted was in 3" shells.
This is all great info, but nobody I know hunts ducks with anything less than #2 steel shot at 1550fps. The ammo is relatively cheap and plentiful in this category and available in 2-3/4" shells at this shot size and velocity.
Cheap is a hard variable to beat. Steel won't be going away anytime soon becuase it's so cost effective. And it works are regular ranges
Boss shot shells crush birds all I kill with
Those have become my favorite as well!
Have to disagree. Have used lead,steel, and bismuth. Steel sucks period, we agree on that. However, my past and current experiences Lead is more manageable than Bismuth. Have always loved bismuth, even the older companies. In old days I could drop a mallard with 20 gauge 7 1/2 ,Bismuth can’t come close to things like that. The numbers are there. On paper bismuth .Lead is a bumble bee performing. Bumble shouldn’t fly, but they do. Lead shouldn’t be better than bismuth,but it was.
So my point was not to say bismuth is better than lead. But that modern bismuth can outperform the average pre-ban lead loads. Now folks that used high performance pre-ban lead loads used something better than modern bismuth. But per my research, the average duck hunter was using fairly tame loads before 1991.
#5 lead 1.25 ounce of shot at 1330 is the best duck load
Outside of TSS, that is probably exactly what I'd use if lead were legal. Very effective and very cheap.
Another note to address is that these super fast steel loads simply do NOT pattern worth a damn
Yea, and that is a fairly big issue too.
What about combo loads? Such as hevi hammer, apex waterfowl, etc. that are 80/20 or 70/30 steel and bismuth or tungsten
I think they are marketing ploys. I did a test video with HEVI Hammer vs. HEVI Steel. For the cost increase, you don't get much. Maybe some of the others are better, I haven't tested them.
Sorry but I remember hunting with my dad in Michigan and we used #2 and #3 shot sometimes # 4 and all was 3" if we could get it
I'm sure you did. But about 90% of ammo used for duck hunting was the equivalent of today's #7.5 target loads, but they had #5 #6 shot. It was not labeled duck ammo. It was the cheapest bulk ammo money could buy and it was used more than anything else becuase it was cheap. This information is from people who own ammo manufacturing companies.
All lead 1 1/4 ounce duct & pheasant loads were 1330 ft./s not 1100 ft./s. 3 3/4 dram equivalent is 1330. I only shot two loads, 7 1/2’s for doves 5s for pheasants and 5s for ducks. Would kill pheasants easily at 60 yards. Same load with 7 1/2 would easily kill doves at 70 yards.
Misspelled DUCK
Hi Daniel, that may have been what you shot, but I talked to ammo manufacturers who told me what was predominately made and sold in those days. The majority of shells made and sold were as I described in the video. Maybe as an enthusiast you didn't even pay attention to the average load used because you wanted and used higher performance shells. I'm the same way today, I rarely even register the underperforming shells on the shelves, but those are still the majority of what is bought and sold by volume.
@@TheNewHuntersGuide The only shells that were low velocity were magnums which were 1 1/2oz to 13/4oz All high base 23/4 in. 1 1/4 ounce 3 3/4 dram equivalent were 1330 ft./s . I reloaded shot shells since I was 12 years old. I am now 71. Chronographed and patterned hundreds of shot gun ammo.
@@danielsullivan9865 Where were you hunting and what were these high velocity shells labeled as?
@@TheNewHuntersGuide Most of my hunting has been in Northern California but I’ve also hunted in Argentina, Mexico, Canada and the Midwest. 11/4 oz. 33/4 dram lead high brass shells are still being produced Federal, Winchester,Rio and other brands. To equal the performance of these shells with steel shot need to use BBs 11/8oz. 1550 ft/s. Anything less with steel you get to much wind drift.
Bismuth is better because it is heavier than steel. That's a simple fact. Heavier shot have more energy down range
Thank you!
Kent makes upland loads that are 1350 #4/5 3”
Yea, but the idea was to compare what was used vs. what's legal today. Of course we could make better lead today, technology has improved. But the modern nontoxic ammo is not inferior to the bulk lead of yesteryear.