One of the ways the beginning of science is described is observation: observation leading to a question to be answered, a problem to be solved. That leads us to a more practical question for bird hunting: what shot size to use and at what ranges?

Unfortunately, the notion of “energy” and “penetration” has been misapplied. Dr. Martin Fackler, who was kind enough to proof some of my articles on wounding ballistics, was a pioneer in the development of ballistic gelatin. Ballistic gelatin was designed not to simulate birds at all, but human tissue using swine muscle as a close approximation. When pigs can fly it might be more useful to bird hunters, but the covey flying pigs is a rare sighting indeed. Moreover, ballistic gelatin does not attempt to model skin or bone, much less feathers, but only soft swine tissue.

There are far too many variables in actual hunting to accurately observe them . However, Tom Roster prepared what is called “The Most In-Depth Turkey Lethality Study of All Time,” evaluating 6,940 pellet hits into live turkeys along with supplemental heads and necks at known ranges. It is noted that “We would not use such materials as plywood, chipboard, cardboard, or gelatin blocks for measuring pellet penetration. All of these materials have huge differences in densities, water content, and elasticity when compared to bird tissues.” Finally, the ballistic gel nonsense as applied to birds was dispensed with.

One of the more interesting findings was “At 45 yards it took at least a No. 5 (.120-inch) high antimony lead pellet weighing an average of ~2.57 grains when launched at 1250 fps to be capable of penetrating completely through a turkey’s skull and cervical vertebrae to produce B-1 bagging.” The B-1 bagging is dead or immobile within thirty seconds. Though Tom Roster's testing concerned exclusively turkeys, it offers a very good idea of what is necessary to instantly bag pheasants and similar birds where a broken wing and a broken leg guarantees 100% game recovery. It strongly implicates #5 lead (or a pellet of similar mass) as the baseline for a reliable 45 yard wild pheasant load where you have the added complexity of going going through feathers and other tissue before you actually get to the vitals. It is p = mv: momentum per pellet that is more relevant to bird body wounding than energy gyrations or notions of expansion. Pellet diameter is what creates the permanent cavity.

Most every study ever done conflicts violently with other studies. If they don't have it all wrong, they sure don't have it all completely right. There are clear reasons for this. Between the Patuxent and Nilo studies, some 4,400 game farm mallards were killed in flying harnesses, with shotguns fired electronically to precisely center the pattern. But that isn't how ducks (or anything else) are hunted. No one shoots at birds in flying harnesses and it isn't possible that the harnesses themselves perfectly simulate free-flight. Nor do human beings fire shotguns by remote electronic triggering, not all patterns are perfectly centered, and hunting isn't shooting at a bird at one exact, precisely known range.

It is unfortunate that ammunition is sold with imaginary features like “knock-down power,” “hard hitting,” and “long range power.” No one knows what those terms actually mean, which I suppose is the point. Regardless, if you always use one shot per bird and he falls dead every time, you've hit him hard enough.

Many of the prior lethality studies will give you a headache. For example, in the 2008–2009 Texas mourning dove lethality study, lead #7-1/2 from a 12 gauge had a 26.1% bag rare inside 28.3 meters (30.95 yards) and a 15.8% bag rate at 28.3 meters and beyond, for an overall bag rate of 20.9%. It seems like someone forgot to add the knock-down power or long range power into these dove loads? It isn't that shell inside 31 yards on a dove, nor can you have any wounding ballistics on much of anything if it is never hit. Hunter surveys are notoriously flawed, just like fishing surveys.

There is a built-in inclination to use smaller, lighter, but inadequately lethal pellets-- it is part of the human condition, for more holes in paper impresses us, although paper is just as dead with anything you hit it, or don't hit it with. Clearly, a #4 pellet launched at the same velocity as a #6 or #5 pellet has less drop, less wind drift, higher strike velocity, produces a larger wound channel, and due to the higher actual weight of the pellet combined with the higher strike velocity-- the #4 pellet breaks bones better as well. Larger pellets with the same antimony content also deform less and pattern more efficiently as well. The #4 pellet is usually the best choice for wary wild pheasants as a result. followed by #5. The sole advantage of #5 lead is higher pellet counts. To get the ideal 100 pellets in a 30 inch circle with 1-1/8 oz. #4 lead,  you need around a 66% pattern percentage at the ranges you are shooting. With a 1-1/4 oz. load of #4 lead, you need about a 59% pattern percentage.

For those looking to increase their field effectiveness, keeping a log of shell and choke used, its pattern percentage, and birds bagged per shots fired will help, as long as the actual ranges are documented as well. Just muttering that so and so “works just fine” or “works great” is meaningless. No one knows what “working just fine is” in terms of ranges involved, shots fired, and grading the kill as Tom Roster has done as in “B-1 bagging” and so forth. Clean misses are a function of practice, of course, but assuming you do connect on your bird, don't you want to know how quick and clean the results are? It is more satisfying, it saves on ammo, and your dog will have great appreciation for your efforts. The “bang bang” when nothing drops and the resultant soul-piercing look from the dog is extremely unpleasant.

If you don't aspire to perfection, you will never achieve excellence, and if you never compare and contrast loads and performance, you will not be motivated to make a change that improves the situation. Doing the same thing over and over cannot result in any change. It is all part of the journey and it results in improvement, satisfaction, and confidence. Have fun doing it, and enjoy the ride.