Buckshot effectiveness study...

[DocGKR]

"Regardless of velocity, the increase in lead from 00 to #1 is impressive."

Typically about 35% more tissue crush using #1 buck vs. 00

[GJM]

Classic ft-lb fallacy at work in that quote. It's not the ft-lbs that kills things, it's the tissue damage. It depends what he means about dangerous game, to a degree. Taking frontal shots (lengthwise) on a charging animal, you need penetration. The smaller, very fast-moving cats and similar-sized stuff may be relatively man-sized, and lots of #1 could be effective.

Even a heart shot may not stop a wild animal that's intent on killing something with its last breath soon enough to prevent it getting to you and doing some damage. With bigger animals, you've got to get through the skull and hit the central processor. Hence the "USP .45 Super" thread as P-F's official "bear thread." Frankly, I've never seen anyone else writing of dangerous game hunting/backup with a shotgun, even with a tube full of Brennekes.

I hunted lion in Zambia, and took a big male at first light. When we went to follow up, and fortunately the lion was deceased from a .375 H&H, 300 grain Trophy Bonded soft point, my PH had my Benelli Super 90 is his hands, filled with buckshot.

[ccmdfd]

Now if we could just get Federal to start producing #1B flite control again.

cc

[WobblyPossum]

Now if we could just get Federal to start producing #1B flite control again.

cc

That would be fantastic. Last I remember reading here was that Federal was tweaking the load to eliminate an issue with periodic fliers.

[OlongJohnson]

I hunted lion in Zambia, and took a big male at first light. When we went to follow up, and fortunately the lion was deceased from a .375 H&H, 300 grain Trophy Bonded soft point, my PH had my Benelli Super 90 is his hands, filled with buckshot.

Cool, learning is occurring. Thank you.

To explore this a bit more...

We all seem to be in agreement at this point that for deer-size animals, the penetration of #1 is at least sufficient and the greater volume of crushed flesh is an advantage over 00. Which as has been pointed out is not a new consensus by any means.

I recall that you generally keep handy a shotgun full of Brennekes in places where a large bear might appear. So somewhere between deer and bear, you go the other way and take greater penetration.

Similar in concept to a varmint bullet that will turn a prairie dog inside out likely not being the best for deer - it may make a big entrance wound and let the deer run a long way before it stops.

Since 00 penetrates deeper than #1 and 000 penetrates deeper than 00, is there any point in selecting buckshot size according to the size/toughness of the animal you're going after, trading total tissue crush volume for getting to the tissue that matters more? Or is that angels and pinheads...? In the real world of tooth and claw, do you just keep it simple and go with whatever Flite Control load patterns well in your gun and switch to slugs when you think you need to go deeper?

[GJM]

This was circa 1998, so the details may be fuzzy, and the technology has changed. Normally, in Zimbabwe, my PH had a full auto FN FAL, but we were in Zambia with just access to my guns, which were the Benelli, a .470 NE double and a pre 64 375 H&H. We mostly wanted something faster shooting than the bolt/double, and the Benelli was it. I may have slept with the Benelli close to me at night. Not sure we gave much thought to which size buck.