woodsmaster,
Thanks for your response. Here's how I came to my conclusions.
I knew Bob Brister very well. I first met him in the 1980's, when we were working for the same magazine, and we ended up doing a lot of shotgunning together, both of targets and birds, as well as a lot of cussing and discussing shotguns. When we met I'd already read his classic book on shotguns more than once, and he very graciously signed it for me.
One of the occasions when we hunted together occurred in 1996, when Federal was about to introduce its first "hard tungsten" factory loads. I'd already been shooting bismuth in the field for a while, to find out what it was all about, so wasn't unfamiliar with alternatives to steel shot, but to really give the new tungsten shot a valid field-trial Federal took me, Bob, and two other gun writers to Argentina, where we could shoot a LOT more waterfowl than in the U.S. In fact Federal flew 105 cases of ammo down, not all tungsten but some lead, for testing on the abundant upland birds down there. Among the results of the extensive field-testing were some strong suggestions from Bob to the Federal guys, made one evening toward the end of the hunt, about the basics of shot and killing birds.
At any rate, I've done a lot of similar tests since, though unfortunately not with Bob, because he got too old to travel much anymore, and then passed away. Aside from returning to Argentina, I've tested new kinds of shotshells (and shotguns) extensively in South Africa (which if anything has better hunting than Argentina) and in Canada, where the limits aren't as large as Argentina but often more than in the U.S.--with the exception of snow geese, which I've also hunted during spring in the Midwest.
On one of the snow-goose shoots I was working with bismuth in a 3-1/2" 12-gauge, and since the geese were hard to decoy close (as they often are, due to being shot at a lot) most were taken at longer ranges. My wife and I got to take all the geese home, partly because she's a game cookbook writer and needs lots of wild specimens for working up recipes, and partly because nobody else wanted any. (Apparently not many people know how to cook snow geese.) Now, one other shooter in our group tended to claim he killed almost any goose that fell in the direction he was shooting, but when we got home and processed all the birds, we found the vast majority were killed with bismuth--including one I'd marked, because that other guy claimed he'd killed it. He was shooting steel, like everybody except my wife and I.
The last such field-test occurred two years ago in Alberta, where my wife and I hunt frequently, both for cookbook birds and testing the latest non-toxic loads. On that trip there were two main shotgun goals, new non-steel loads in her 20-gauge and softer non-steel loads in my Spanish 10-gauge double, including both handloads and factory with bismuth and soft ITX shot. We hunted with an outfitter we've known since the early 1990's, and shared the blind with a pair of brothers from Calgary, who've also hunted with the outfitter several times. They're good shots but only used steel. The very first day we got a good supply of birds to take home, so after that I started experimenting with the 10 more. Eventually I ended up waiting until after everybody else shot at a flock of decoyed birds, then unlimbered the 10. This obviously resulted in longer shots at birds going away, either quartering or directly, yet I ended up dropping ducks and geese at ranges the guys using steel wouldn't even attempt.
We were not just shooting greater Canadas, but lessers, white-fronted geese and occasional snows, along with some ducks. The denser patterns of the smaller, heavier shot in the 10 made a very noticeable difference. This is one aspect of wingshooting many hunters don't understand: Bigger birds are actually easier to kill with less-dense patterns, because more shot is likely to hit bigger birds. I've seen this again and again not just when hunting waterfowl, but bigger upland birds, especially sage grouse with a 20 or 28-gauge.
So yes, my experience is different than yours, and the reasons I've found heavier non-toxics to kill birds better are the same outlined by Bob Brister when he talked to the guys are Federal over 20 years ago. He knew a lot of about shot not just from studying it or shooting clays, but because he made a large part of his early living shooting live birds in competitions, both waterfowl and pigeons. (In fact he built a big house in Houston mostly on the proceeds from his live pigeon shooting.) While he also did well in clay-bird shoots (he was one of the major figures in bringing Sporting Clays to the U.S.) he always preferred shooting birds, and shooting birds is different than shooting clays. First you have to drop them, not just break them, and that requires penetration--especially on going-away birds. Plus, as he often pointed out, clays are easier to hit because they're more predictable, and slow down after being thrown.
His major points in selecting loads for birds were:
1) Use shot hard enough to retain its shape, rather than flatten or break up, which not only produces better patterns but increases penetration.
2) Use shot dense enough to penetrate well.
3) Use loads with enough pellets to result in sufficiently dense patterns to make hitting vital areas more likely.
All of Bob's list is why various kinds of heavier non-toxic shot kill birds better than steel. You can use smaller shot for a denser pattern, yet retains its velocity better at longer range, and penetrates even deeper. More deep-penetrating shot in a bird results in more quick kills.
Steel works very well within its range, especially modern high-velocity steel loads in larger shot sizes, partly because it's hard, conforming to (1). I once astonished some pheasant-hunting companions when hunting a creek here in Montana. Late in the season it was common to also jump mallards, so I used steel shot, and in a light 20-gauge, because shots were likely to be quick and relatively close, usually not more than 30-35 yards. The steel crumpled both roosters and mallards, and eventually the other folks had to ask what I was using in "that little 20." They were flabbergasted when they found it was steel.
But the light weight of steel pellets still creates a ballistic wall beyond a certain range, both in velocity and penetration. They slow down faster, and in the term often used by rifle hunters, they lack "sectional density," the relationship between frontal area and weight, which helps penetration. Yes, steel works fine in the 12 and 10 gauges at typical goose ranges, but when ranges become marginal for steel, whether due to its lower velocity or thinner patterns, the other non-toxics work noticeably better. It's basic physics, which is exactly what Bob Brister pointed out that evening in Argentina long ago.
