Minimum pattern density

Interact with others on shot gun shells, reloading, ballistics, chokes, or anything that has to do with your shooting.

Moderators: donell67, Ohio Wildfowler, NV Guide, pennsyltucky

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Jon Bergren » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:47 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
Jon Bergren wrote:Again Frank does not reload steel, just another "arm chair ballistician. Ned S


Well, at least you're making some progress! You finally are ready to admit that I do reload and have reloaded for a long, long time, just not steel. But, reloading and wounding ballistics are two very different subjects. In fact, while reloading has some effect on the overall external ballistics of a given load, it is far from the only influence, nor is it the main influence.

Regarding 5 pellets in a goose, that's fine, though somewhat light, but your premise is that you need to get five into a goose to get one in a vital. As I said, earlier, it doesn't quite work that way. You need to look at the vital area as a whole and calculate that off the total area of the 30 inch pattern AND factor in the Gaussian distribution of the pattern. Fact, there are NO even patterns, period.

First, there are even patterns where there are a min of 4 pellets or more to bring down a mallard and 5 pellets or more to bring down a goose. I opt for more pellets at the distance I will be shooting. On mallards I generally shoot two 4's then a 3. This year I will be using 3" 1 1/8 oz of 2's for my 3 rd shot on mallards and to take care of an occasional goose. I also have never said that 5 pellets will hit a goose vitals or 4 pellets will hit a mallards vitals. Most reloaders I know opt for more than the minimum pattern when they are waterfowling. I hunted with Labs, the last 20 yrs with two Labs and they took care of the cripples and I never lost one that I knew of.
Have a nice day, Ned. Glad to see you're back.

Frank
Jon Bergren
hunter
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 pm


Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:33 pm

Jon Bergren wrote:First, there are even patterns where there are a min of 4 pellets or more to bring down a mallard and 5 pellets or more to bring down a goose. I opt for more pellets at the distance I will be shooting. On mallards I generally shoot two 4's then a 3. This year I will be using 3" 1 1/8 oz of 2's for my 3 rd shot on mallards and to take care of an occasional goose. I also have never said that 5 pellets will hit a goose vitals or 4 pellets will hit a mallards vitals. Most reloaders I know opt for more than the minimum pattern when they are waterfowling. I hunted with Labs, the last 20 yrs with two Labs and they took care of the cripples and I never lost one that I knew of.


Please post one of your even patterns. I've shot thousands of patterns in both lead and steel and never once have I seen an even pattern. They always follow a bell curve unless something is wrong and you have a blown pattern. That center weight of these patterns has to be paid for in some manner. That manner is that the outer portion of the pattern suffers. This makes the effective pattern much, much smaller than the standard 30 inches and as a result less useful.

Regarding your opting for more pellets than necessary, why? Your postings indicate that you're convinced that some ridiculously small number of pellets in a 30 inch pattern will consistently drop the intended target (most of your posts advocate about half of what Roster, Burrard and others have published). If you don't feel that you need all those extra pellets, why bother? Or do you really believe that 18 pellets in a 30 inch circle aren't enough to kill a large goose CONSISTANTLY!

Hunting with a good retriever is an excellent conservation tool, to be sure. A good dog makes up for poor shot placement and saves a lot of game. However, a good dog should never, (NEVER, be used as an excuse for poor equipment choice.

You seem to have a good deal of animosity towards Roster, yet, when push comes to shove, now you're telling us that you secretly follow his recommendations!? Either way, if you have data that shows your numbers to be legitimate and Rosters excessive, you should probably look into some sort of a legal challenge. He is, after all, well published, especially among the various state game departments. You'd stand to make quite a bit of money if you can prove your numbers to be correct.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Yuchi1 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:50 pm

Well....this past weekend, we took some young nimrods out (Oklahoma's annual Youth Hunt weekend) and they shot several Gaussian Speckle Bellied geese, some Burrard's Ringnecks and one Roster Redarse spoonbill. All were take with <4 pellets from patterns of <30 pellets per 30" circle and all died immediately.

Also, we saw several Paper Ducks but the kids decided to pass on them as they seemed to smell worse than a flock of Old Coots.

Carry on....

:beer:
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby John Duck » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:14 pm

"In Africa, Use more gun". -R. Rouke

"For American Waterfowl, Use more shot". - Old Market Hunters
John Duck
hunter
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:25 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:04 am

John Duck wrote:"In Africa, Use more gun". -R. Rouke

"For American Waterfowl, Use more shot". - Old Market Hunters


Actually, what Rourke said was "Use enough gun." As for the old market hunters, that really wasn't the case, either. If you look up the journals of some of the more famous ones, including Fred Kimble, they actually used less shot than is common in today's loads.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby 3200 man » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:41 pm

There's the answer ! Ned was around about that time , wasn't he ? :yes:

Most of the birds I shoot have 8 holes in them , how can I reduce this shooting 1 oz loads of 3's and 2's ? :biggrin:
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:10 pm

"For American Waterfowl, Use more shot". - Old Market Hunters[/quote]

As for the old market hunters, that really wasn't the case, either. If you look up the journals of some of the more famous ones, including Fred Kimble, they actually used less shot than is common in today's loads.

Frank[/quote]

you mean like this example?
http://www.bluerockheritage.com/images/ ... napp-5.jpg

or this one..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nt_gun.jpg


Gunning Chesapeake Bay
by John M. Taylor • November 3, 2010

........Some used a multi-barreled gun, others a large punt gun loaded with a pound of shot

The Lacy Act, enacted into law in 1900, made market gunning illegal, but old habits died hard. The last of the punt guns was not rounded up until the 1960s, and market gunning persisted well into the 1950s.
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:13 pm

solway gunner wrote:
"For American Waterfowl, Use more shot". - Old Market Hunters


As for the old market hunters, that really wasn't the case, either. If you look up the journals of some of the more famous ones, including Fred Kimble, they actually used less shot than is common in today's loads.

Frank


you mean like this example?
http://www.bluerockheritage.com/images/ ... napp-5.jpg

or this one..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nt_gun.jpg


Gunning Chesapeake Bay
by John M. Taylor • November 3, 2010

........Some used a multi-barreled gun, others a large punt gun loaded with a pound of shot

The Lacy Act, enacted into law in 1900, made market gunning illegal, but old habits died hard. The last of the punt guns was not rounded up until the 1960s, and market gunning persisted well into the 1950s.


You'll need to do a bit better research, Solway. Punt guns, while used, no doubt, were not as popular as one would think. Most professional market gunners opted for 8 and 6 gauge guns with about 1 1/2oz of shot. Those that used 10ga guns were pushing about an ounce and a quarter. The shot they were using as very soft and the black powder had a violent ignition, both of which led to extreme deformation of shot and degradation of pattern. By using less shot and a larger bore, they kept the shot column short which eased the deformation issue. So, much like your own neighbors to your immediate south, they were of the opinion that less was somewhat more. Shot was an expensive necessity in their trade and they made the most of what they had.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby lostknife4 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:08 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
Jon Bergren wrote:First, there are even patterns where there are a min of 4 pellets or more to bring down a mallard and 5 pellets or more to bring down a goose. I opt for more pellets at the distance I will be shooting. On mallards I generally shoot two 4's then a 3. This year I will be using 3" 1 1/8 oz of 2's for my 3 rd shot on mallards and to take care of an occasional goose. I also have never said that 5 pellets will hit a goose vitals or 4 pellets will hit a mallards vitals. Most reloaders I know opt for more than the minimum pattern when they are waterfowling. I hunted with Labs, the last 20 yrs with two Labs and they took care of the cripples and I never lost one that I knew of.


Please post one of your even patterns. I've shot thousands of patterns in both lead and steel and never once have I seen an even pattern. They always follow a bell curve unless something is wrong and you have a blown pattern. That center weight of these patterns has to be paid for in some manner. That manner is that the outer portion of the pattern suffers. This makes the effective pattern much, much smaller than the standard 30 inches and as a result less useful.

Regarding your opting for more pellets than necessary, why? Your postings indicate that you're convinced that some ridiculously small number of pellets in a 30 inch pattern will consistently drop the intended target (most of your posts advocate about half of what Roster, Burrard and others have published). If you don't feel that you need all those extra pellets, why bother? Or do you really believe that 18 pellets in a 30 inch circle aren't enough to kill a large goose CONSISTANTLY!

Hunting with a good retriever is an excellent conservation tool, to be sure. A good dog makes up for poor shot placement and saves a lot of game. However, a good dog should never, (NEVER, be used as an excuse for poor equipment choice.

You seem to have a good deal of animosity towards Roster, yet, when push comes to shove, now you're telling us that you secretly follow his recommendations!? Either way, if you have data that shows your numbers to be legitimate and Rosters excessive, you should probably look into some sort of a legal challenge. He is, after all, well published, especially among the various state game departments. You'd stand to make quite a bit of money if you can prove your numbers to be correct.

Frank


Frank, you, nor anyone else will ever see a Ned pattern posted IMHO.
I'm a bit disappointed with Roster because of the last two articles in "American Waterfowler" magazine wherein he talks about non toxic shot and TSS is conspicuous by its absence in his writings. Since he is revered by so many for his knowledge of handloading and shooting in general his articles smack of pro-staffing for Hevi along with St Patrick and those other merry bunch of back slappers, hmmmmm.....
X2
Lost
"It's not the game but the chase ~ not the trophy but the race !" from my Dad, many years ago.
User avatar
lostknife4
hunter
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 pm
Location: Eastern Canada

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:31 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
solway gunner wrote:
"For American Waterfowl, Use more shot". - Old Market Hunters


As for the old market hunters, that really wasn't the case, either. If you look up the journals of some of the more famous ones, including Fred Kimble, they actually used less shot than is common in today's loads.

Frank


you mean like this example?
http://www.bluerockheritage.com/images/ ... napp-5.jpg

or this one..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nt_gun.jpg


Gunning Chesapeake Bay
by John M. Taylor • November 3, 2010

........Some used a multi-barreled gun, others a large punt gun loaded with a pound of shot

The Lacy Act, enacted into law in 1900, made market gunning illegal, but old habits died hard. The last of the punt guns was not rounded up until the 1960s, and market gunning persisted well into the 1950s.


You'll need to do a bit better research, Solway. Punt guns, while used, no doubt, were not as popular as one would think. Most professional market gunners opted for 8 and 6 gauge guns with about 1 1/2oz of shot. Those that used 10ga guns were pushing about an ounce and a quarter. The shot they were using as very soft and the black powder had a violent ignition, both of which led to extreme deformation of shot and degradation of pattern. By using less shot and a larger bore, they kept the shot column short which eased the deformation issue. So, much like your own neighbors to your immediate south, they were of the opinion that less was somewhat more. Shot was an expensive necessity in their trade and they made the most of what they had.

Frank


Theres nothing wrong with my research as i was referring to the area around Chesapeake Bay /Susquehanna Flats and the choice of weapons used by the market gunners who shot there.I own both books by the Walsh brothers-"Gunning the Cheasapeake" and "The Outlaw Gunner" ,youve obviously never read either of them ,but if you want to truly see what guns were used in the area maybey you should have a look and see how these guys risked their lives in little skiffs toting 2in bore puntguns firing 2lb of shot,and 4ga 3 barreled battery guns amongst other hardware which were used in great numbers by market gunners in the area.
The whole idea of being a market gunner was to kill large numbers of fowl which is why they went for the biggest shoulder guns available from 10ga -4ga and were loaded appropriately according to chamber length ;nothing to do with patterns-do you think a market gunner would waste a charge of shot and powder on a pattern board?a typical market gunner of the time patterning his shotgun-seriously?
11/2oz of shot you refer to was the shorter chambered 10ga load and about as much damn shot as they could cram into a 3"hull, and why the 8ga was the gun to go for having longer chambers or bigger bore for muzzleloading and firing much larger charges,but always loaded to chamber length and maximum payload!ballistics didnt come into it! they were as guilty then of magnumitus as what we are now.A 4" magnum 8ga then would be made to propel 31/2oz even 4oz of shot although the typical average around the time was 6drams black powder /2ozs of shot for a common 8ga loading.Light charges of shot didnt come into the equation ,it was simply a case of cram as much shot in and make it go bang and kill as many ducks as possible,these guys werent wimps ,recoil to them wasnt a big deal .
6ga and 4ga were primarily muzzleloaders and would be made to fire a minimum of 4oz.
The lead shot they used was not only screened but both of good quality and uniformity and in 1860 350tons of shot was made
for the year by the Merchant Shot Tower Co of Baltimore City,for use in guns around the bay.
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:15 pm

Wow, two books by the same authors! :no:

Seriously, punt guns were used, but they weren't as common as some would have you believe. Using some logic for a moment, have you considered what the recoil would be from a 2 lb charge of shot? Those guns were called punt guns because they were lashed to the punt itself. The guns were mounted at some angle known to the gunners and the punt sculled into position on a raft of ducks. When the correct moment arrived and the birds were in the air, the gun was touched off. The end result was as likely to have put the occupants of the boat on the water as ducks. They were as dangerous to the hunters as to the ducks. As a result, they were never really used as much as the romance of the era would have you believe. A visit to the museums in Havre de Grace Md. will set you on the right path. Another thing to remember is that while most sources cite the Lacey Act as being the death knell for market gunning, many states had long since enacted statutes to outlaw many of the practices, among them the use of punt guns.

Market gunners did indeed, use many different methods to aid them in killing as many birds as possible in as short a time possible. Bushwhacking, baiting live decoys and other methods were all part of the arsenal. But the fact is that most could not afford a gun of such large proportions. As already noted, their equipment was dear to them.

Most market hunters used single or double barreled guns with relatively light charges. The standard 10ga was 2 7/8. Ithaca introduced the 3 1/2 inch gun and Western the 3 1/2 inch cartridge in 1932. And when reliable repeating shotguns came into being, most switched over. Some early pumps and lever action guns were made in 10ga, but most were 12ga. In fact, the gun that was most responsible for the demise of market gunning was the A5. It, and no other semi auto, were made in 10ga until the Ithaca Mag 10.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby BBK » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:19 pm

Frank, can you suggest a couple good books on the subject of punt guns and/or market hunting? I'd like to read up on it some. :beer:
Why do I shoot 3.5" for geese? Because they don't make a 4" yet!
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:31 pm

BBK,

There's a couple that you can have a look at, the two mentioned above by solway, there's one about Fred Kimble that is really pretty good. What I've found is that most of those have been romanticized a bit. You can start with a Google search for articles on line about market hunting waterfowl. You'll have to peck your way through, but eventually, you'll start to find some first hand historical accounts. You may have to zero in on some of the more historic hotbeds. Chesapeake, Long Island (there's several good articles available on this), Currituck and others. The last few issues of the American Waterfowler had some pretty good accounts, too. The main thing is to read any historical account from the era. Most times, information you'll glean is actually part of another subject. There's a pretty good account in Dr Starr's "Decoys of the Atlantic Flyway" as well as McBride's "Federal Duck Stamps".

Hope that helps some. Anyway, sometimes the actual research is half the fun.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby BBK » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:44 pm

Great, now I'll be up all night reading :lol3:

The whole market hunter era has always intrigued me.
Why do I shoot 3.5" for geese? Because they don't make a 4" yet!
BBK
hunter
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:50 pm

BBK wrote:Great, now I'll be up all night reading :lol3:

The whole market hunter era has always intrigued me.


Start with thisARTICLE It's called "Are We Shooting 8 Gauge Guns" and is by Nash Buckingham. It was first published in Guns and Ammo magazine in 1960. Kind of makes minced meat out of some of the federal limitations on what guns we can use. Pay attention to the passage on page 264 where he discusses some correspondence he had with Kimble about the loads he used.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby blackened89 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:59 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:Wow, two books by the same authors! :no:

Seriously, punt guns were used, but they weren't as common as some would have you believe. Using some logic for a moment, have you considered what the recoil would be from a 2 lb charge of shot? Those guns were called punt guns because they were lashed to the punt itself. The guns were mounted at some angle known to the gunners and the punt sculled into position on a raft of ducks. When the correct moment arrived and the birds were in the air, the gun was touched off. The end result was as likely to have put the occupants of the boat on the water as ducks. They were as dangerous to the hunters as to the ducks. As a result, they were never really used as much as the romance of the era would have you believe. A visit to the museums in Havre de Grace Md. will set you on the right path. Another thing to remember is that while most sources cite the Lacey Act as being the death knell for market gunning, many states had long since enacted statutes to outlaw many of the practices, among them the use of punt guns.

Market gunners did indeed, use many different methods to aid them in killing as many birds as possible in as short a time possible. Bushwhacking, baiting live decoys and other methods were all part of the arsenal. But the fact is that most could not afford a gun of such large proportions. As already noted, their equipment was dear to them.

Most market hunters used single or double barreled guns with relatively light charges. The standard 10ga was 2 7/8. Ithaca introduced the 3 1/2 inch gun and Western the 3 1/2 inch cartridge in 1932. And when reliable repeating shotguns came into being, most switched over. Some early pumps and lever action guns were made in 10ga, but most were 12ga. In fact, the gun that was most responsible for the demise of market gunning was the A5. It, and no other semi auto, were made in 10ga until the Ithaca Mag 10.

Frank



Why don't you tell us how you're right and he is wrong Frank
User avatar
blackened89
hunter
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:11 pm

blackened89 wrote:
Why don't you tell us how you're right and he is wrong Frank


What is it that you don't understand? He's basing his point on what is written in tow books by the same authors. As I've pointed out, if you poke around a little and review first hand accounts from historically dated articles and letters (many of which are available on the internet), you get an entirely different view.

You have to remember that so much of what we learn as "history" is actually something that has been capsulized and trimmed to fit in some book. Sifting through the actual documents reveals a much clearer picture. If you visit some of the waterfowling museums on the east coast, you'll see lots of stuff that you'd think were pretty commonly used. Spending half an hour with a curator will often reveal quite a different story. Punt guns fall into that category. They are attention getters. And while they were definitely used, it wasn't all that common. Like I said, they were expensive to begin with and expensive, and quite dangerous to operate. The market gunners of yore didn't get rich off market gunning. Far from it. They were simple baymen who wrestled out a living from the bays and marshes in any way they could. Remember, this wasn't an all year gig.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby 3200 man » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:03 am

Here in the Central Valley ( The Duck Factory ) of the Pacific Flyway , there were many market hunters in the early 1920's
as the depression hit the rural areas of this country and men needed to feed thier families . This ( So CALLED ) easy money
made some Very Good Hunters , criminals in our families folk-lore but , we survived !

And they did on the East coast , as well !
3200 man
hunter
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 am

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:44 pm

Frank Lopez wrote:
blackened89 wrote:
Why don't you tell us how you're right and he is wrong Frank


What is it that you don't understand? He's basing his point on what is written in tow books by the same authors. As I've pointed out, if you poke around a little and review first hand accounts from historically dated articles and letters (many of which are available on the internet), you get an entirely different view.

You have to remember that so much of what we learn as "history" is actually something that has been capsulized and trimmed to fit in some book. Sifting through the actual documents reveals a much clearer picture. If you visit some of the waterfowling museums on the east coast, you'll see lots of stuff that you'd think were pretty commonly used. Spending half an hour with a curator will often reveal quite a different story. Punt guns fall into that category. They are attention getters. And while they were definitely used, it wasn't all that common. Like I said, they were expensive to begin with and expensive, and quite dangerous to operate. The market gunners of yore didn't get rich off market gunning. Far from it. They were simple baymen who wrestled out a living from the bays and marshes in any way they could. Remember, this wasn't an all year gig.

Frank


frank ,
Q/Have you actualy been to one of these museums or seen the iron bay dogs?
Youd argue black was white for the hell of it.
what you dont know is ive a friend whos actualy from Maryland-a local boy- that stays over here for a month at a time wildfowling on the Solway with a goose guide whom im also very friendly with too,hel be over very soon.Ive known Robby for best part of 20yrs and hes told me first hand of how the bay has changed since hes hunted it and has a vast knowledge of the area and has told me some grand stories that took place on it from his teen years to recent times,hes now well over 60yrs.
You cast dispersion just because the two books i quoted were written indeed by local brothers on the bay ,you claim punts werent common and were "expensive", you claim 11/2oz was a common loading too,and now your claiming market gunners didnt make a healthy living at it also?does sunday actualy follow saturday ??these guys killed duck in telephone numbers and had trains taking shot duck everywhere to flashy restaurants . What would todays equivalent to the value of $1.50 be worth in 1893? In 1893 dealers were giving $1.50 a pair of redheads,in one day alone one man killed 235 .,you do the maths and work the rest of his week out .,but your probably right,that was poor money by the standard of the day.
(that particular day 5k duck were shot alone -Baltimore Sun 1893)
Lets not go near the sinkboxes they used....youl rubbish them too likely.(how id love to hunt duck in one of those surounded by 300decoys.)
ive 4books on the bay area and my favorites are by the Walsh brothers ,both being very informative with some great pictures from local perspective on hunting the area,i could recommended them to anyone interested in the area.
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Frank Lopez » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:04 pm

Well Solway, as a mater of fact, I have visited these museums. A number of them. We have a couple or three right here on the Island. What you seem to be missing is the fact that I did acknowledge that punt guns were used. What I said was that they weren't all that common place. On the other hand, sink boxes, live decoys, baiting and other methods were much more common. Have a look at the history of the repeater and why the 3 shell limit was instituted. There are also several accounts of market gunners putting out into the Chesapeake with two guns and a loader and shooting each gun till the barrel become too hot then dunking it into the bay to cool it. The fact was that if you had your rig set correctly, you could take more birds in a day with a "normal" shoulder gun than you could with a punt gun.

As far as the dollars are concerned, yes there were days when a windfall was there to be made. However, much like it is today, we don't see that on a daily basis. If there are any accurate accounts of market gunners getting rich off waterfowl, I've never seen any and would be interested to see one. Most of those old baymen made more money as guides for the wealthy sports that came to the popular areas for the gunning.

If you can get hold of it, Dr. Ken Starr's book contains a wonderful chapter on market gunning in the late 1800s through the early 1900s. (The latter period being one of somewhat covert operations :wink: ). He describes the typical market gunning operation of three or four men with two doing the shooting. There is also a very good passage about a William Dobson who, in 1879, went into his battery before daylight with two double 10 gauges. Halfway through the morning, one of the guns burst, so he simply tossed the wreckage into the bay and continued along with one gun. At the end of the day, he had 509 canvasbacks and redheads, something of a record in Havre de Grace.

Frank
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister
User avatar
Frank Lopez
hunter
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: Long Island New York

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:20 am

ok guys you will have to read slowly as I cant type fast :huh:
from"the bird hunters" by Bill Axbey


it may be of interest to todays shooters to realise that shoulder guns were made up to 2"bore.
the one I have info on was a single barrel 40"long, weighed 20lb and shot up to 15 drams of black powder behind 4 1/4 to 5oz of shot. four bore doubles had 34" barrels, weighed between 15 and 12lbs used 10-12dr of black or 120-130grs of bulk nitro with a 3-4oz payload.........
back as far as 1900 .12 bore duck loads were up to 1 1/2oz with 58grs of bulk nitro
these arent punt guns which went from 1 1/8 bore up to 2"......
single punt guns
bore 1 1/8" 60" barrel 30lbs 21dr powder 6-7oz shot.....
2" bore 112" barrel weight 190-200lb powder 6-7oz 2-2 1/2lb of shot....
BBs seemed to be the most popular although 4s are mentioned for godwit and curlew with large kills made out to 80yards. with BBs 100yard kills were possible.


there ya go guys
not keep on arguing....
dont let me stop ya :hi:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:57 am

now your slipping lost :huh: :huh: :huh: I kind of was expecting you to say something about how great TSS#9 would have been in a punt gun!!!! imagine the carnage :thumbsup:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby solway gunner » Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:55 am

no9s ? :lol3:

Puntguns are stll used in the UK the but bore diameter is now restricted to 1.75in . Loads in puntguns vary in payload pertinent to the weight /size of the gun/bore but on average the still exceed 1lb of shot,the larger 2in guns would be loaded up to 2lb.We still have an odd local take his punt out on the Solway but thy keep their success rates close to their chests.Im no expert but the ranges your quoting are stretched a bit.I was very friendly with our local punting "ace" Roy Martin,sadly no longer with us ,who lays claim to the largest shot of mallard certainly in the UK and probably a lot further afield.70yrds was the longest shot he would take and he disliked other punters from attempting longer shots as they did nothing but cripple duck and spook the widgeon rafts for future shots.
Those 2bores you mention couldnt be shot practicaly off the shoulder regardless of claims and have the lanyards hole in the stock for boat use.
The deadliest modern gun developed from last century in the USA was and still is the modern magnum 10ga,giving the perfect balance of gun weight, bore diameter and payload,and still is the best allround choice of gun for killing geese.America went miles ahead in development of ammuntion and components from the mid 1930s and still are no1 in the world.
All or nearly all we use for fowling now from guns/fieldcraft skills /aids hail from development gleaned over the last 2 centurys,it just gets forgotten about sometimes.
solway gunner
hunter
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:50 am
Location: scotland uk

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby lostknife4 » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:59 am

Elvis Kiwi wrote:now your slipping lost :huh: :huh: :huh: I kind of was expecting you to say something about how great TSS#9 would have been in a punt gun!!!! imagine the carnage :thumbsup:


Have to use #7 because the pattern density would be much to high... And since the TSS would pass through the ducks it would kill all the ones behind it so you would spend the rest of the day just picking up dead ducks before the tide pulled them all out to sea.
Too many birds..............
Lost
"It's not the game but the chase ~ not the trophy but the race !" from my Dad, many years ago.
User avatar
lostknife4
hunter
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 pm
Location: Eastern Canada

Re: Minimum pattern density

Postby Elvis Kiwi » Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:11 pm

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Elvis Kiwi
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am
Location: South Island New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Shotshell, Reloading, Ballistics, & Chokes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests