The other day, Cheech Kehoe and I were hunting Lake Champlain and I had the opportunity to shoot a mallard at long range with my 100+ year old Remington 10 ga. I was using home brewed 2 7/8" shells loaded with Bismuth BB's. When I shot the bird, I could see shudder, but it flew on, only to drop out of the sky 100 yards later. When we retrieved the bird, it looked undamaged and since it was such a good sized bird I elected to pluck it whole instead of breasting it out. It was then that I found the one and only hole in its body. There was an entrance wound on the lower right side and the pellet was stuck up under the skin on the upper left side. That pellet penetrated 8" or 9" at 50 yards. I find that amazing.
John Bourbon
John,
I'm not really sure of exactly what your point is/was here. If you're talking up the effectiveness of old guns loaded to their original specs with soft non toxic loads, then yes, I agree. Old waterfowl doubles truly are some of the best treasures of the sport.
But if it is the pellet performance you're amazed by, you really shouldn't be. Read some of the writings of Fred Kimble and his contemporaries. After he developed choke, 60 yard shots were quite the norm, and his favorite duck load was "St. Louis threes". As far as that single pellet strike, here's what I believe happened. You were probably a little off with your shot placement and hit the bird with the fringe of the 30 inch pattern. The pellet that did hit the bird did, however, have sufficient energy to penetrate almost fully. I think that if you did some further investigation you would have found that the pellet had struck one of the air sacs or a lung. Since avians do not breath in the same manner as mammals, it took some time for the bird to either bleed out or have the lung fill with blood and drown it. I've had this happen to me, and the first time it happened, the bird (a goose) flew almost three hundred yards. I thought I shot super goose or something. Then I found out about a birds respiratory system.
Frank