Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Steel Shot Testing & Lethality Data

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    19,124

    Default Steel Shot Testing & Lethality Data

    Is Steel Shot Effective? Here’s What the Data Say After Decades of Testing
    The author has spent the last 40 years studying and researching pellet lethality. Here's what he's learned
    By Tom Roster

    Steel shot is here to stay. Despite its tarnished (and undeserved) reputation and the popularity of other nontoxic pellets types, steel shot has emerged as the number-one selling nontoxic shot type worldwide. It has also become the least expensive of all pellet choices—and that includes lead shot. All of this has been aided by shotgun manufacturers who learned to make choke systems that can withstand the stresses of hard shot like steel and tungsten composite, rather than just soft shot like lead or bismuth. This has eliminated barrel damage concerns for most shotguns, old and new.

    Still, there are folks who argue that steel shot doesn’t kill game birds effectively. I’ve got the field data that say otherwise.

    Testing Shot Material on Wild Birds

    I was involved in research that consisted of 13 nontoxic shot types in double-blind U.S. field tests. Data was published in peer-reviewed professional journals or was delivered to wildlife agencies and hunter organizations worldwide. I also did testing for ammunition manufacturers Remington, Environ-Metal, and Winchester. My responsibility was to co-design, direct, conduct, and author the reports of the results measured. That work occurred over a 40-year period and continues today. Nothing I am going to report here is mere opinion. It is all proven fact via objectively derived, controlled testing on wild birds and based on statistically sound sample sizes. Much of it involved volunteer participation by thousands of U.S. hunters.

    The research involved taking X-rays and necropsies of some 26,000 North American ducks, geese, pheasants, doves, quail, and turkeys to study pellet penetration and striking phenomena. This resulted in the world’s largest lethality data base on lead and nontoxic shotshell ammunition performance on wild game birds. It also involved the destructive testing of dozens of shotguns and the pattern testing of 25,000-plus rounds of shotgun ammunition.

    So what have we learned from all this testing? Let’s look at an overview of the results.

    Steel Shot Did Not Produce Higher Wounding Losses

    In field tests with regular hunters, steel shot did not prove to produce higher wounding losses than lead shot—as is commonly touted by the steel-shot haters. As a gross generalization, the test results thus far have found that on ducks from 30 to 50 yards, for example, steel and lead shot produced about a 34-percent wounding rate per 100 birds bagged. In comparison, tungsten-composite shot produced about a 27-percent wounding rate, and unbuffered bismuth shot produced about a 42-percent wounding rate.

    Hunters shooting steel did require more shells to bag their birds (ducks, geese, pheasants and doves) than with lead loads. That’s because the hunters missed significantly more with the steel loads than with the lead loads tested.

    This is likely because steel and all hard tungsten-composite pellet types produce a significantly shorter and narrower shot string than lead or bismuth shot. This demands more precise shooting because, unlike lead and bismuth, all current hard nontoxic shot possess rounder pellets to begin with, which do not deform during shell-firing and barrel passage. Shot patterns are directly proportional to how consistently round a load’s pellets are when they exit the muzzle.

    It’s important to note that, because this was a double-blind study, neither the hunters nor the observers knew which shot type or load was being fired. Rather than using a load’s real name and shot type for the study, shells were assigned code names so even the data crunchers didn’t know which pellet type was involved. In other words, these tests were rigorously objective.

    Matching Shot Size to Species

    Matching shot size to the size of ducks you’re targeting is critical. Which loads and shot sizes proved the best by bird type? All reasonable shot sizes were tested: No. 7.5s to T’s depending on the targeted birds. Across all distances, the findings revealed that size No. 2 steel, No. 3 bismuth, and No. 4 for all the tungsten-composite pellets were the most lethal for large ducks (meaning dead or immobile within 30 seconds of one round striking). One smaller pellet size in each load was a close second on big ducks, and proved most lethal for medium-sized ducks. For large Canada geese, BBB steel, No. 2 tungsten, and BB bismuth proved most lethal. For medium geese (snows and whitefronts), BB steel, No. 1 bismuth, and No. 2 or No. 4 tungsten were the most lethal loads.

    Pheasants, which are about the same size as large ducks, proved much harder to kill than many hunters would expect. No. 2 steel, No. 3 bismuth, and No. 4 or No. 5 tungsten-composite pellets were required to produce the same killing performance on pheasants as large ducks. Necropsies revealed this had mainly to do with the angle of shots and tissues that have to be penetrated given the shot presentation pheasants provide compared to most duck. With doves and quail in a Texas dove field test, No. 6 and No. 7 steel proved equally as effective as No. 7.5 lead. No. 7 steel and No. 8 lead proved most lethal on quail. Neither bismuth nor tungsten-based shot was tested on doves or quail. Thus far in the study, only lead and steel shot have been tested for taking turkeys. Assuming turkey head/neck shots, No. 4 steel and No. 5 lead proved most effective.

    Match Load Weight to Species

    Load weight analysis indicated that for ducks and pheasants a minimum of one oz. of steel, 1-1/8 oz. of bismuth and tungsten-based shot were needed regardless of gauge for the highest lethality rate. For geese and turkeys it was 1¼ oz.; for doves 7/8 oz. and ¾ oz. for quail.

    The tungsten-composite pellets tested proved more effective than steel or bismuth shot for taking birds beyond 40 yard distances. Those were HEVI-Shot, HW 13, two different 13 g/cc to 15 g/cc density tungsten-composite pellets sold for reloading, and 18 g/cc density TSS.

    Minimum Pattern Density Makes Choke Selection and Ranging Critical

    Extensive pattern testing of all the loads involved in shooting birds produced some valuable minimum-patterning requirements at all distances. In other words, there’s a minimum threshold of pellet strikes within a 30-inch circle for lethality. These details are summarized in my copyrighted Nontoxic Shot Lethality Table (below) which, by permission, accompanies this article.

    You will note in my table that Improved/Modified and Full chokes proved needed for required pattern densities at longer range with nontoxic shot just as with lead. Do not believe the oversimplified misinformation that hunters should be employing only Improved Cylinder and Modified chokes when shooting hard nontoxic shot. Open chokes result in inadequate pattern densities beyond 40 yards with all shot types. And if your manufacturer warns against tighter chokes than Modified when shooting steel and the hard tungsten pellets, simply buy after-market chokes in the tighter constrictions that are advertised as hard-shot compatible and will thread into your shotgun’s choke system.

    Increasing Velocity Does Not Increase Lethality

    What about load velocity? Velocity vs. lethality was tested from 1225 fps to 1600 fps. Despite the trend these days for many factory nontoxic loads to possess ultra-high velocity levels (above 1400 fps), no improvement in lethality was found on the game birds targeted for loads with velocities above 1400 fps. Instead, there was a significant increase in recoil and degradation of patterning performance with such high velocity levels for all shot types tested. So this rigorous empirical testing on wild birds indicates clearly that bird hunters will do just as well, if not better, with modest velocity levels of 1250 to 1400 fps with all shot types. There is little to no ballistic improvement or lethality to be gained by going higher. Remember that recoil-related stresses to your shotgun and radial strain to your chokes go up exponentially with velocity.

    This is likely because steel and all hard tungsten-composite pellet types produce a significantly shorter and narrower shot string than lead or bismuth shot. This demands more precise shooting because, unlike lead and bismuth, all current hard nontoxic shot possess rounder pellets to begin with, which do not deform during shell-firing and barrel passage. Shot patterns are directly proportional to how consistently round a load’s pellets are when they exit the muzzle.

    It’s important to note that, because this was a double-blind study, neither the hunters nor the observers knew which shot type or load was being fired. Rather than using a load’s real name and shot type for the study, shells were assigned code names so even the data crunchers didn’t know which pellet type was involved. In other words, these tests were rigorously objective.


    https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/ste...0Min_HyFX2jijA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Alabama
    Posts
    4,755

    Default

    Interesting stuff

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Lynches River
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Guess I just can't shoot... they were right all along damn it!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    3,890

    Default

    Still have my doubts. Lead flat kills.
    "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went."
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    4,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasha and Abby View Post
    Still have my doubts. Lead flat kills.
    and still does.


    Steel definitely kills, what I'm finding is slowing the fps, increasing payload of the right shot size, coupled with the right choke tube (Muller maybe?) and steel will crush them.
    Listen to your elders. Not because they are always right but because they have more experiences of being wrong.

    "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give" Sir Winston Churchill

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    52,309

    Default

    Welcome to 1992...

    We killed them with steel further than the leaddites ever thought about killing them...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    4,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajunwannabe View Post
    and still does.


    Steel definitely kills, what I'm finding is slowing the fps, increasing payload of the right shot size, coupled with the right choke tube (Muller maybe?) and steel will crush them.
    What are you seeing to be most efficient on your average puddler to large bird?

    Kent had some 12ga 5s that performed really well with a modified but I was only shooting them at wood ducks.
    Last edited by Buckin Bronco; 01-28-2026 at 01:23 PM.
    Sea Ark 1542 w/ Yamaha 40
    Xpress 16 w/ 50 Hammer
    War Eagle 15 w/ 30 Hammer

    --------------------------------------------------

    "Sometimes you gotta grab the bull by the horns and the women by the tits and take charge in your life" - General Patton

    "I'm very drunk and I intend on getting still drunker before this evening's over."
    - Rhett Butler

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    With a mod choke a 20ga 2 3/4 Winchester #6 steel off the shelf at Wal-Mart will slam any duck you care to shoot within 40 yards.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    13,736

    Default

    Steel shot is still more dangerous to your teeth when eating birds. On the bright side, a pin-pointer metal detector will detect steel shot in meat. Lead shot is hard to find with one.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    52,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palmetto Bug View Post
    Steel shot is still more dangerous to your teeth when eating birds. On the bright side, a pin-pointer metal detector will detect steel shot in meat. Lead shot is hard to find with one.
    Amen to that. If I were a dentist I would give it out by the case. Same way I would give away trampolines if I were a orthopedic...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    paradise city
    Posts
    646

    Default

    Good ole #6 Remington extra long range lead was and still is the cats meow. Don't be scared boys!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    where you aren't
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Tom Roster sold us all out. He got to hunt the refuges and in return he reported that anemic 1200fps steel 2's and 4's were better than Lead hands down. Some of the old footage showing clean 50-60yd kills with those old "steel" loads. Honestly I think he just had the time of his life on our dime in the refuges. Don't get me wrong all sizes of steel will kill ducks within their limits, but Lead flat hammers ducks. Those early primitive steel loads he was testing with are nothing like tge steel loads of today...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    4,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buckin Bronco View Post
    What are you seeing to be most efficient on your average puddler to large bird?

    Kent had some 12ga 5s that performed really well with a modified but I was only shooting them at wood ducks.
    Here's a video from last week. My youngest backed my oldest on one of these ducks using Kent 12 ga, 1 3/8 oz #3 1300 fps through a Muller "passing" choke. My youngest is a good shot but after patterning with Muller and using it he's completely sold on slow, heavier oz payloads.
    I was working two greys when a pair of Mottleds slid in from behind us.

    Listen to your elders. Not because they are always right but because they have more experiences of being wrong.

    "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give" Sir Winston Churchill

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    990

    Default

    "Hunters shooting steel did require more shells to bag their birds (ducks, geese, pheasants and doves) than with lead loads. That’s because the hunters missed significantly more with the steel loads than with the lead loads tested."

    ?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    13,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SC quacker2 View Post
    "Hunters shooting steel did require more shells to bag their birds (ducks, geese, pheasants and doves) than with lead loads. That’s because the hunters missed significantly more with the steel loads than with the lead loads tested."

    ?
    Tighter patterns. You either hit them or clean miss them.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SC quacker2 View Post
    "Hunters shooting steel did require more shells to bag their birds (ducks, geese, pheasants and doves) than with lead loads. That’s because the hunters missed significantly more with the steel loads than with the lead loads tested."

    ?
    That statement doesn't seem to back up his data does it. I will say this the early steel shells seem to be lacking, hunters were still trying to use their oringal lead set up to shoot steel, and they did not reduce the range of shot to the effective range of that era steel shells or go to larger shot sizes. I think the modern non tox stuff is pretty effective given more experience and large selection of ammunition and chiokes. The younger hunter seem ok with it as most have never shot lead at ducks and geese

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    He said the wound rate was about 34% with steel and lead. He then said hunters using steel missed more.

    Those two things are unrelated. They can also occur at the same time. Don't overthink it.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fish View Post
    They can also occur at the same time.
    yep Just interesting he said it in that way as the miss rate should be the same for those who dont shoot well cause they wont shoot well with both steel and lead. Good article though
    Last edited by centurian; 01-29-2026 at 04:54 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •