Thanks for sharing, will go looking for his research. My personal experience has not been similar.
Nor has mine, and I go through a lot of ammunition. I've tried various Bismuth and Tungsten loads, with the exception of the TSS. I'm excited to try TSS in my 28's.
This statement caught my attention:
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.
Missed more, or crippled more that were counted as missed? I'm going with the latter, as I regularly hear steel shot hitting birds that fly off apparently unfazed. I don't hear it with Tungsten loads, once in a while with Bismuth. I will not shoot steel unless it's an emergency. And the majority of misses have 0 to do with shot string or tight patterns, people shoot behind the birds. No bird was ever killed by shot that passed behind it. If I understand the test parameters correctly, it was blinded so the shooters didn't know what they were using. They therefore couldn't correct for shot type by changing chokes as an average Joe would, so the pattern statement is a maybe.
I agree inside 35 yards or so steel is fine. That's great for guys with a honey hole where birds drop in their lap. Those of us who hunt public areas aren't usually so lucky, my average shot is more than 35 yards.
In my experience people who don't lead the birds enough are to blame for many cripples with any shot type. To see this in action, watch any video produced by guides with guys shooting at coots/scoters. PitBoss has a whole series this year. They shoot behind almost every one, and the ones that drop are typically cripples. Having shot far to many coots and eiders in my life to post the number, I'll just say shooting from a rocking boat is a challenge but the motion doesn't make you shoot behind. Somebody needs to make an instructional video explaining lead on crossing birds. If no other point gets across, people need to learn to focus on the head and lead it to minimize gut and butt shots. When you see a puff of feathers come out of a bird, those are the butt feathers. One pellet in the head/neck is worth a half dozen in the body.
Boss Bismuth has been good out to 45-50 yards, it gets used in marshes where we expect birds to handle reasonably well. I will miss it when my stash is depleted but will replace it with a Tungsten alloy. Steel will rust on the shelf. I used the original Bismuth loads in the early 90's (I forget the manufacturer, not Boss), they were not very good, so not all Bi loads are created equal.
In other situations, the best I have used is the Remington HD #4's. Big medicine out to beyond where I'm going to shoot. I'm sorry to disagree with the study and opine that no steel load will be as capable as a Tungsten shot payload. Ever. Call me a radical for considering basic physics, silly stuff like 1/2MV^2.
Abandon rumor, hearsay, and internet forum discussions about nontoxic shot.
Normally I enjoy Tom Roster. He's written many good articles, especially on reloading. I applaud his efforts to test various shot types, and I don't doubt that the results of the study are reported accurately. I'm clenching my fist to keep my middle finger from saluting this condescending statement.
www.outdoorlife.com
