Do you use Steel Shot for Upland Species??

Brutus

Brutus

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
117   0   1
Location
West of most places....and in Alberta
I want this to be a polite discussion regarding steel shot, or any other non toxic alternative bird shot on purpose for only your upland (non migratory) bird hunting.

Why do choose to do so, your impressions, effective range, special handloading needs if any, etc?

Also do you feel comfortable taking geese at pass shooting ranges, and are you an older gentleman/lady with prior experience waterfowling with lead shot before the ban?
I welcome your thoughts and personal hunting experiences right here in this thread.
In all honesty, do you feel that the crippling rate has increased or decreased overall?
Yeah, lots of questions here indeed.

Cheers........
 
Last edited:
I don't use steel as I don't hunt Migratory Birds, if I did then it would make sense to use steel for both in order to take a duck or goose should the oppurtunity provide while upland hunting. I do, on several occasions each fall come accross ducks & geese while upland hunting. That having been said, their no reason you couldn't use non-toxic shot for upland hunting provided you match you're ammo to the conditions.
 
When I hunt the prairies of Alberta I just carry steel shot as there is the possibility of putting up a flock of Hungarian Partridge or jump ducks from a slough. Occasionally there is an opportunity to pass shoot ducks sometimes, but not often geese.

However when I am hunting ruffed grouse in the foothills I just use lead shot but I am considering switching to steel when my supply of lead ammo runs out. This keeps things simple.

I am an old guy who does remember the lead shot days and have found that modern steel shot quite effective out to my maximum range of 40 yards or so and because I am an old guy my reactions are not as fast as they used to be and the birds get out a little farther on me so I use a modified choke in my 16's and 12's.

I spend a lot of time patterning loads in my guns to see what they prefer and in most cases they like a load of #4 steel (1350 to 1450 fps) in a standard 2 3/4 shell and this load is quite effective for me. If there is a stronger possibility of running into ducks and geese I will carry 2 3/4 #3 ammo.

My preferred ammo is the Imperial 2 3/4 steel shot as it has a larger payload of 1 1/8 rather than the 1 1/16 of the faster loads and I prefer the shot density of the larger shot charge.

Hope that this helps
 
I carry a few rounds loaded with Nice Shot whenever I am hunting upland just in case we come upon a chance at some slough ducks or geese.
I don't use Steel in moat of my hunting guns because they are either vintage guns or 28 gauge, neither of which work well with steel.
Nice Show, Bismuth, or ITX is what use.
Cat
 
When/if it comes regulated then I will switch to non-toxic shot...
Yes I used to shoot lead and made the switch to steel (personally) two years before it became mandatory here in Canada.
Just thought it would be interesting to get ahead of the curve..had to learn to lead the birds alot less...
What are you looking for in your question,something specific to assist your shooting success or something else?
Just curious as to the results you seek.
Rob
 
I've recently been considering the use of steel for Upland since we often come across small ducks (mainly Wood Ducks) while out for Grouse. There are opportunities for jump shooting that I am not able to take advantage of due to possession of lead shot on my person. I need to pattern 20ga Kent Upland Fasteel...... 7/8oz loads @ 1500FPS ought to perform well in my scenarios. I've 28ga Bismuth in 4, 6 and 7s. However, early season I carry a 20 for better penetration in thick foliage.
 
I only use steel for waterfowl and, if I happen upon a target of opportunity while waterfowling, then they get shot with steel. I never purposefully look for waterfowl when upland hunting. Most of my upland hunting takes place driving around looking for birds. When doing this we carry 2 shotguns...our steel-compliant semis and our lead-only doubles. If you see a likely slough, dismount and take the appropriate shotgun. Might not work for everyone but when hunting with my mobility-restricted father it's just the ticket.
 
I never use steel for upland birds, I use nickel plated lead. I grew up using lead shot for waterfowl, and while the first steel loads for waterfowl were sub standard compared to lead, the modern steel loads are very effective.
 
I almost always carry steel. I load my lead for the skeet range, but the opportunity for doves and ducks outweighs the mass (dis)advantage to me. I don't have enough time as it is, I want to be able to harvest anything I come across...

Will usually put a heavier loading in the top barrel with a tighter choke with my Instinct L, ready for anything!

C
 
One of the reasons I greatly reduced my water fowl hunting was steel shot. I very strongly disagreed with the move and at the time I was on the board of directors for a organization that was instrumental in getting the lead shot ban enacted. The majority advocating the ban and making the decisions were none hunters and anti hunters. Steel does not effectively kill as well as lead at a given range, "period" and you can argue that back and forth until the cows come home but you will never convince me other wise, I tested it, played with it, experimented with it, and decided for steel to be effective you must change your hunting habits, reloading procedures and learn new shooting technics, and open your wallet more as it is going to cost you. It is also costing us more wildlife as my opinion as a lot more birds die from wounds from nontoxic shot than they died of lead poisoning. I don't have any statistics to support the statement the same as there are no statistics to refute it.

I am not old but old enough to have been brought up in the lead age, and old and experienced enough to know political self centred BS when I see it, and that is exactly what the lead shot ban is.

So to answer your questions, I only use steel shot if I absolutely have to. And then I cut the range down to 30yds.+or-. It's a whole new learning curve as the shot strings are short and moving at a higher velocity, so the sight pictures are different. Even with lead most ducks and geese were shot at to great a distance because the average hunter was a poor judge of it. So with nontoxic the ranges have to be cut down even further, this to me is one of the most important aspects.

I will not use nontoxic on upland birds or pheasants. Doesn't make one iota of sense to me not to use lead. The original ban on lead shot was because water fowl (trumpeter swans) were ingesting lead shot from heavily hunted areas while feeding and dying of lead poisoning. Upland areas do not receive the hunting pressure to build up the surface quantities of lead to result in lead poisoning. In fact nor do the vast majorities of water fowl areas in this country.

Do I feel comfortable pass shooting with nontoxic shot? "No" at least not personally, unless the birds are close 25yds. Hell I have shot geese at that range with lead #4's 1 1/4 oz @ 1330 and had them shutter, fly another 300yds and then fall out of the sky dead, that has happened on many occasions with different lead loads in our goose hunting group. I can only imagine what nontoxic results would have been.

With this thread I have just realized there is a whole generation of hunters that have not hunted water fowl with lead, so you really do not have any basis to draw on for a comparison. Lead as a projectile is highly effective and cheap. I am old enough I guess to be set in my ways, opinionated, grumpy and stubborn to change especially when it was not needed in the totality that was enacted.
 
Last edited:
I agree with mrgoat. Started out hunting with lead on waterfowl and then was forced to make the switch. As for the topic I shoot only lead for grouse and small game. I have a box of steel 3" #2 in the truck or a couple in my vest handy if the situation presents itself. Living in NWO I have never seen steel target loads available and unless the law requires it,mine have no intention of switching.
 
I quit hunting waterfowl for quite a few years simply because I was disgusted with the offerings of steel on the market.
The last while however, there are different wads and loads available so we are once again shooting ducks and geese.
I have shortened my ranges however.
AS far as upland hunting goes, have never ever considered hunting pheasants and partridge with steel and hope I never have to!
Cat
 
Thanks for your input guys! I was jjjuuuusssttt getting used to my leads with lead when the ban took firm hold in Canada in the late 1990s.

So I feel a bit ripped off too. As I was shooting a double gun then, the thought of sixty bucks per barrel turned me right off the sport and the wads were not up to snuff back then either!!
I sincerely hope steel/non toxic shot does not become universal. But recently in places like NS, there is a strong and locally popular push for non toxic shot of all kinds.

I am not a huge fan of Randy Wakeman, but he once published an excellent article regarding the crippling loss of waterfowl in a Louisianna study that put a very bad light upon this bird ammo.

Some people need to be reminded of these facts in our eastern regions. Myself, I mostly agree with Cat and Mr Goat. Someone stole my effing shotgun sport and I want it back! lol
 
Last edited:
I've used everything from steel 7's to steel 4's going from 1300fps to 1700fps. 7's are completely useless for my uses and should not be shot at game any further then 20 yards period. I didn't notice any difference in terms of cripples. Find lead shot produces more bruised bloodshot meat in my small game verses what happens with steel. Max range on steel 4's is about 40 yards give or take with a good patterning load. As far as lead not crippling waterfowl before the ban, look at all the hevi shot and other tungsten heavier then lead loads. They still cripple and ballisticially they are better then lead in everyway except price.
 
Mr. Goat's experiences mirror my own. I spent nearly a decade shooting lead, and then it took another few years to get a handle on steel for waterfowl. It forced a pretty drastic rethink, with the biggest adjustment being to "pull everything in", if I can put it in those terms. Shooting ranges and decoy sets came in closer, and that opened up new possibilities in some locations and eliminated others. Bottom line is that I eliminated any shooting beyond 30 yards and work exclusively inside that. I give up most pass shooting opportunities.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that steel made any sort of greater environmental improvement for waterfowl. Probably the opposite, as a lot of steel-wounded birds are never recovered. And I see no solid environmental case for steel in upland areas whatsoever.
 
I use steel #6 1 oz at 1375 fps for snipe. I find it an excellent load for them. I have shot ptarmigan with this load as well and killed them out to 30 yards but it usually results in a cripple. It's too bad we can't use lead for snipe like they do in the states.
 
Quoting Mr Randy Wakeman, the Lacassine study in Louisianna demonstrated a 41% crippling increase with steel shot. And previously Winchester studies at Milo Farms affirmed this same conclusion. Experts put the loss of 25-30% losses each year. Meaning in the USA and Canada combined 3.4 to 3.7 million birds are crippled and lost each year. So many of us were so frustrated with the lead shot ban that the end result is an overabundance of waterfowl species that are decimating their nesting areas and poisoning our drinking water and parks were our children play. And creating aviation hazards at airports and airfields. This is a world wide problem, and is well documented and reported from New Jersey to Christchurch.

Now I ask with facts and figures such as this, how can governments ignore the truth & continue to shove stupid regulations down our collective throats??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom