Central South Island > Hunting News April 2008

Experienced Hunters acknowledge Steel shot will do the job. 
Graeme Hughes. Fish and Game Officer.

It is pleasing to receive, at last, favourable  comments regarding the efficacy of steel shot in the field. Last season, many of the hunters who I conversed with admitted that initially their duck hunting success had not been good due primarily to steel shot cartridges. The reason being, in most cases. dollars. Kiwis pride themselves in obtaining bargains or doing things “on the cheap”. While this could apply to many purchases quite satisfactorily, it does not, as many have found out, apply to duck hunting cartridges, especially steel shot ammunition.

The ammunition manufacturers continue to improve on their product, and there is considerable difference to the ammunition Fish and Game  imported several years prior to the mandatory use of non toxic shot. A group of Fish and Game staff from Central South Island and Southland several years prior to the prohibition of lead shot on Fish and Game and DOC wetlands were using steel shot for both duck and Canada goose hunting. Over decoys, inside 30 meters, we had no problem but for those birds  missed as incomers which rapidly became out goers the results were sometimes disappointing. Shooting at longer ranges was obviously “off the menu” with steel. As the transition period drew to a close some of us acquired  different brands of ammunition and found that some were extremely “sharp” and killed faster and better. With the aid of a chronograph shot velocity was measured and the more I learned the more confident I became. Today the velocity of shot charges are “miles ahead” of those cartridges with which we began our non toxic hunting careers.

“Speed kills” and this applies to steel shot. Speed however costs money. You pay more for premium high velocity ammunition but when you think about it, cartridges are the cheapest item you will use on a waterfowl hunt. Some of the slower economy ammunition available will do the job in close but for maximum results you will not regret using premium cartridges. “Quality remains long after the price is forgotten” as my shooting mate continues to inform me.

“New Zealand Shoveler, resplendent in full breeding plumage , the most colourful of New Zealand’s dabbling ducks”
Photo G.Hughes

I believe that often  the perceived “in range”  bird missed is blamed on steel shot when in fact it is due to poor distance estimation. Estimating distance, especially across open water or valleys is always a bit of a lottery. Ask any of your hunting mates to estimate the distance to a land mark near or far and you will receive many different answers. It is a gift, however you can practice at it and become much more accurate. Range finders, range finding sights and binoculars incorporating a range finder satisfy a demand for those of us who don’t have this skill.

At a recent duck hunters shoot on the West Coast, I was invited to attend to pass on some goose hunting techniques. The West Coast staff like me realised that accurate range estimation was important no matter what you are shooting at or what ammunition you may choose to use. We set up a full bodied flying goose decoy on a 3 metre pole across an open pond and invited attendees to record their estimates of distance, the shooter who got it right or the closest to the actual distance would receive a prize. My memory is about as good as my range estimation but I think the estimates recorded by some  30 participants varied  from 32 metres to 76 metres. A range finder told us that the actual distance was 56.7 meters. There were only 3 or 4 entries in the 50 metre mark.

Further to this range estimation exercise, on the same pond,  a group of static and moving decoys were set and an incoming clay target simulating a landing mallard was  thrown to land in the pond near the block of decoys. This target could be seen from 70 meters out and it was quite a realistic flight path and speed. There were 4 shooting positions, one near the pond’s edge as often seen in a private pond situation, 20 metres from the target’s flight, one at 30 metres, one at 40 meters and the most distant from the target at 50 metres. The hunters were given 2 targets at each position, but were not told what distance the “duck” was at. Using #4 steel shot, two shots were fired at each target (ammunition supplied free of charge by WCF&G). At 20 meters there was almost 100% kill rate and targets were mostly “atomised”.  At 30 metres errors began to creep in, at 40 metres, by my estimation, less than 50% were “killed” and at 50 meters the hits were less than 20%. Steel shot critics may be thinking that the pattern of #4 shot in steel at 50 metres would be sparse and hits would be “chippy”. Let me assure you those who caught  and “centred” the incoming “mallard” obliterated the target. Pattern density was also well illustrated by those who left their second shot until the “duck” was almost on the water, the extent of the pattern plainly obvious across the surface of the pond. The exercise demonstrated admirably that the distance factor is most important and while the ammunition is capable of killing adequately at 50 metres few of us are capable of hitting the target consistently at this distance. With good decoys, calling and concealment there is little requirement to do so. From the experiment between 20 and 30 meters from decoys appears to satisfy the skills of the average water fowl hunter. 

Despite the huge modifications made to shotguns and ammunition over the last 50 years, the old measure that “a shotgun is a short range weapon and that it will kill consistently up to 40 yards” still holds true.

back to Both Barrels

If you would like to be kept in touch with Gamebird hunting news and other hunting information, please sign up for Both Barrels, our Gamebird hunting email newsletter.