Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
sheephead24

What size shot for pheasants?

15 posts in this topic

I picked up some 3.5 inch 2 shot steel, 1 3/8 oz. for ducks, will that work well for roosters also or should I downsize for them?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a great load for later in the season when the birds are spookier. i start with 4's and use 2's later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 3/4 inch 5s or 6s is perfect for early season. Later you may want to switch to 3 inch 5s or 4s. 3.5 inch is way overkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 2.75" and 3" No.2 steel all season long for roosters. Wouldn't go back to lead for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also use #2 steel all season long, it has good knock down power at 35 yards and if they're close just wait wait wait to pull the trigger. And by using steel all season long I don't have to worry when I goto public land about swapping out shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal 2oz. Premium #6's should be outlawed smile

Steel gets the job done, but I seem to cripple more with it. #3's & #4's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lead Shot

Early season - 2 3/4" #6 or #5 shot

Late season - 2 3/4" #4 - #2 shot

Steel

Early season - 2 3/4" #4 or #2 shot

Late season 2 3/4" or 3" in #2 shot

Whether it is lead or steel I found that I need to shot shells that are at 1450 fps or faster to consistently hit birds. I have apparently developed a shooting style based in 1500 fps steel shot shells and now I can only shoot the high fps lead as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot skeet choke. Mainly just because most of my shots are within 20 yards and I have too many times tore a bird apart. That is just me, but I shoot a skeet. I just don't take long shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really it depends on how your gun patterns. I use skeet, IC or modified - it depends. My over under is skeet / IC chokes and semi-auto is IC for most of the season. I at times change to modified for the late season birds, especially if pushing wind breaks or food plots with posters. Then oyu have a little range for those jumpy birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use anything from 7.5 through 5 shot for lead and 2 or 3 shot for steel.

I use anything from cylinder to modified for chokes.

12 or 20 are the bores I use.

Pattern your gun to be most efficient at the 20-25 yard range and you'll kill more birds.

Don't shoot at birds out beyond 40 yards. 95% of the shooters out there (including me) have no business shooting at birds that are that far out. It's a recipe to wound and lose birds.

Magnums don't kill birds. Good, accurate shooting at reasonable ranges kills birds.

The only things a magnum hits harder are your shoulder and your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot Improved Cylinder for choke. I only shoot steel and have had very good luck with that choke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this was discussed about a year ago. If memorty serves me correctly, I think it was the DNR that did some kind of study and determined that #2 steel was the best all-around choice for pheasants in most situations when choosing steel shot. I think they looked at many factors including kill percentage, penetration, feather penetration (feathers being dragged into the wound), etc.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.5 in is a little over kill i think but i think that a 3" shell of that shot would be just fine. it all depends on how your gun patterns. i would adjust your shot to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • And if the leftists get lucky at the convention?     You aren't against human rights, like income, health care, equality, LBGTQ rights, and stuff like that, right?  
    • You scale them, no?
    •   So, why bother with locks?  Honest people won't take your stuff even if the door is unlocked.   I am in the camp that I want to make it at least a little difficult for the crooks.   Especially since three people in our family have had their houses burgled and stuff taken.
    • The result right now is not good. One way or the other the toilet needs flushing
    • Mostly I talk about this with respect to the nonsense about multiple parties or no parties some on here seem so fond of.      It is all a fantasy.   Some new party could possibly take over an existing party, like Trumpism did, or even replace it like happened back in the day but in the end there will be two parties.     Perhaps a parlimentary system with multiple parties would be better than what we have, but, in my opinion, you can't get there from here.  It's like the calls for a Constitutional Convention.   Do you guys seriously think that could happen, and that the result would be good?  
    • I haven't gone up the old Grade, but do head to Outing via Emily and NE from there, and it is really nice. Hardly any roads to go across and little to no ditch riding. I have got to try the Old Grade, as I would think it is like that. We grouse and duck hunt up there now and then, but haven't lately. Great place with lots of public land and opportunity.
    •   But yet I countered with an actual study but you think your own speculative based opinion is better. OK then.     How very hypocritical.      I would end the discussion after that last statement too.
    •     I can guess it is not for humanitarian reasons.   Mexico has about had their fill of fighting the drug war for us, and are moving towards decriminalization.  If California legalizes weed, this would be enough to tip the scales in favor of decriminalization for Mexico.       For years now, Mexico has paid an extraordinarily high price in lives and social disruption for Washington’s insistence that North America’s drug problem be tackled south of the border, where the drugs are grown and transported, rather than primarily in clinics and halfway houses at home to treat the medical and psychological issues of users. Mexican President Pena Nieto.   Successive administrations, starting with President Nixon, have demanded ever-tougher border controls, aerial-spraying programs, and DEA-backed anti-“cartel” operations in Mexico. All those efforts and sacrifices have been for naught. U.S. residents currently export up to $29 billion in cash to Mexican traffickers each year to buy marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin.   Forcing that trade underground has taken a terrible toll on Mexico in terms of violence, corruption and social upheaval. Since 2006, when President Felipe Calderón ordered his military to join the “war” on drug traffickers, Mexico has lost about 200,000 lives and 30,000 more have disappeared,dwarfing the civilian death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq over that period.   The majority of those killed and disappeared were victims of criminal organizations, but human rights organizations also report soaring rates of human rights violations, including torture and killing, committed by security forces.   The 2016 Global Peace Index, prepared by the Institute for Economics and Peace, estimates the total cost of violence in Mexico at $273 billion, or 14 percent of GDP, with no end in sight. Direct fiscal costs of fighting the war on crime were about $32 billion in 2015 alone. Yet the United States has contributed only about $2.5 billion since fiscal 2008 to Mexico’s drug war, under the so-called “Merida Initiative.” Mexico’s pain shows no signs of easing. The New York Times reported in December that Mexico suffered more than 17,000 homicides in the first 10 months of last year, the highest total since 2012. “The relapse in security has unnerved Mexico and led many to wonder whether the country is on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between criminal groups,” it said.    
    •   But In Del's defense, he only does this on things he would like to stay as is. When you are talking about legislation he is in favor of then it is the law of the land and can't be changed. When it is something that he dislikes, it can and should be changed.
  • Our Sponsors