Winchester Blind Side

Phil Nowack

Phil Nowack

Well-known member
I saw this in the new Macks catalog.... Has anyone heard about this shot? I am guessing this is to compete with Black Cloud.
 
Aug. issue of "Wildfowl" has an article about it, by good old Brezny. Its hexagonal shaped steel pellets can get more pellet count in the given volume of a wad. Odd wad with diamond cut outs. He shows the flat sidded shot holds regular patterns per given choke. 1400 MV. Time will tell how it preforms in the blind.
Dennis
 
Phil,
While looking at the Blind Side shell, I would like to recommend to you Federal's 7 shot Dove load. You'll save a lot of money this way.
Al
 
I agree with you Al. Another gimmick that waterfowl hunters will snap up so they can kill them at 100 yards. Where are the old school ways of learning how to get them close, shoot straight and leave no cripples? I think the hype in advertising makes hunters loose sight of the main object and creates the idea that they can outshoot the blind closest to them by having these loads, which is why I won't hunt public areas. Many see something in print and take it for gospel and don't realize these test are done under lab or optimum conditions. Most shooters I have seen with these loads aren't a good enough shot to consistantly hit a crossing duck at 40 yards, much less 60. As a taxidermist you won't believe how many ducks and geese I skin that have previously inflicted pellets just under the skin from shots take too far and plenty with broken up feet and legs from being shot too far back to kill, just maime and cripple. In Argentina we shoot 1 1/16 oz.loads of 7's out of IC tubes and let them get in good killable range and regularily shoot over 80% on shells to ducks. Same way at my place in Arkansas. A lot of time a 20 gauge is the biggest gun in the group as many of us shoot 410's and 28's in the woods and they are devestating. Sorry, dont' get mad at me, just got on my soapbox and is just my opinion.
 
I've heard a bit here and there about using small size shot (like #7s) on ducks. I absolutely agree with Patrick that we need to be respectful of the animals we're hunting and take ethical, clean-kill shots at reasonable ranges. But I really have my doubts as to whether steel #7s carry enough energy to kill a bird as big as a duck . . . or the occasional Canada that drops in for a visit.

No matter how important keeping shots limited to close range is to a particular hunter, there's always the chance of a "heat of the moment" trigger pull on one boogying out of town that you missed on the first shot . . . or second . . . ;-)

If #7s kill better, I'll start shooting them!

PS-- On a different note, for whatever it's worth, I abolutely do not believe that the most aerodynamically efficient shot shape is a sphere. In fact, I believe perfectly round balls are terrible aerodynamically. I think that aerodynamically we probably ARE better off shooting cubes!
 

I myself... RARELY if ever shoot past 25 yards. Last year, I fell in love with BC. It dropped birds much harder than the Kent Fasteel that I was shooting.

I understand the theory that with 7's there are few holes in pattern, for the bird to fly through vs, more energy in a heavier pellet. I just can't bring my self to shoot 7's a a November/December GE, Can or Mallard.

I prefer 3" #3's typically...
 
Andy when I think of a cube, I think of a 6 sided object with square/sharp edges& corners. The pic. of this shot shows rounded corners& edges, more like a round pellet with 6 flat spots on it. One thing popped into my mind when I viewed the cutaway of a loaded shell, was all the shot rests in the shell on edge. I would think there would be a wedging motion of the shot upon firing setback. I think i'll stick with my Win.dry lock& expert, works well for me.
Dennis
 
I agree with you Al. Another gimmick that waterfowl hunters will snap up so they can kill them at 100 yards. Where are the old school ways of learning how to get them close, shoot straight and leave no cripples? I think the hype in advertising makes hunters loose sight of the main object and creates the idea that they can outshoot the blind closest to them by having these loads, which is why I won't hunt public areas. Many see something in print and take it for gospel and don't realize these test are done under lab or optimum conditions. Most shooters I have seen with these loads aren't a good enough shot to consistantly hit a crossing duck at 40 yards, much less 60. As a taxidermist you won't believe how many ducks and geese I skin that have previously inflicted pellets just under the skin from shots take too far and plenty with broken up feet and legs from being shot too far back to kill, just maime and cripple. In Argentina we shoot 1 1/16 oz.loads of 7's out of IC tubes and let them get in good killable range and regularily shoot over 80% on shells to ducks. Same way at my place in Arkansas. A lot of time a 20 gauge is the biggest gun in the group as many of us shoot 410's and 28's in the woods and they are devestating. Sorry, dont' get mad at me, just got on my soapbox and is just my opinion.


Thanks, Pat. There is nothing in the world of duck hunting that can compare with sitting in a blind and calling ducks as close to you as possible. Normally I hunt on public land but in an area where there aren't many hunters. To give you an idea, last year I had two guys set up a half mile south of me, so I picked up my decoys and went home. Thought it was much too crowded to hunt.
Anyway, over the course of the last 15 years, I no longer care to try and scratch down a duck. I won't talk about those guys who are sky busters. Those that will not hesitate in taking shots of high flying birds from 80 to 100 yards or more. To me they can't call themselves duck hunters. I have seen the reports just like you have mentioned about ducks carrying steel, being wounded only to crash a half mile away, and or trying to negotiate life with a broken leg, like you also mentioned. Guys pounding away at 60 yards and saying they don't wound any ducks is a complete farce. I was one of those guys years ago but glad that I made a change in my duck hunting ways. (Yes, in my life I have taken a mallard decoy, set it up on the 40 yard line of the football field, then walked back to the goal line to see what a 60 yard shot really is and what the size of the duck looks like. I had built a small plywood platform on a 4' stake so it was easier to see. I have also measured 60 yards and put up a refrigerator cardboard box (taken apart so it is as wide and high as possible) just to see what the pattern looks like with #2, #3, #4, and #6s. All you need is tape, a lot of rolled paper and time. Now I also know about errant bb's. I once had a flock of mallards come into my blocks flying in a long horizontal line coming straight in at me, maybe 12 to 15 birds. I opted to take out the far left hand greenhead. I shot and he crumpled along with a hen that was on the far right hand side at least 15 feet away from the bird I shot at. She had one bb that hit her head. Bird shot will do crazy things in the air and you need to be aware of it. Most duck hunters will never fess up to the cripples that they put down. Just something that happens and the make up of the individual. So for a few years now, I do care to be more careful in my approach to shooting ducks.

I know longer am willing to take a long shot, maybe because of my age. My farthest one now is normally less than 30 yards just because I will only shoot inside the outer most decoy I have set up. If a flock of mallards comes in and is not just right, I will opt to try and swing them around another time for a better look and or shot. If not the second time, then for a third time. Many a time I have watched the ducks fly away but that is all right with me because it is part of duck hunting. I care to be fussy. I like to select my shots and it is important for them to be in my comfort zone.
To me there is nothing worse than knowing that I caused the death of a duck/goose only because of my negligence. I respect what I am trying to shoot and take home with me, way too much. Therefore, when I hunt, if I shoot just one duck, I am happy as hell because it was a bonus for that hunting day. For me to just be out in the swamp/slough,beaver pond/river, and be part of Mother Nature, what else could be more important? I just happen to love shooting ducks with 2 3/4" shells. I go with mostly 7 shot but also have in my arsenal some #6's and #4's depending on the time of year it is.
Al
Click to expand...
 
Amen to that Al, well said. It's why I have a tendency to hunt out of the way spots even if it means getting fewer birds. Since switching to a layout marsh boat last season, anything beyond 25 yards feels far to me. I've also learned inside of 15, which happens commonly, is too close and I've learned to set my decoys at that range. My boat hides so well I've had birds sneak in behind me and land within 3 feet.

Last season I had a sickening morning. No ducks were flying and I decided to walk around my local spot to pick up some garbage I'd noticed and see if any mallards were hiding for some jump shooting, and in the space of 30 minutes my pup retrieved 8 crippled birds and 2 dead ones. Part of this I'm sure was due to the skybusters I'd watched in that blind a few days earlier. Speaking to them about their shooting got me no where at the time, and they left with no birds.

I do realize that even the best hunter will occasionally wound a bird or lose a cripple (we are humans after all and it is a fact of hunting), but that same best hunter will be ethical enough to limit themselves to taking high-percentage shots (for their own ability) and not exceed the true limits of their chosen ammo, be it dove loads or the latest high-zoot rounds. And they will also do everything in their power to retrieve and end the suffering of that rare cripple.
 
When I think of aerodynamics "tumbling bricks" comes to mind. It is suppose to cause more trama in the wound but that has to mean they don't penetrate as far. I like how they keep producing products for problems that don't exist.
Was not being able to get enough shot in a 3 1/2" shell really a problem? Just how tough of birds are most people shooting?

I'd be leery of shooting it through a tight choke like they say you can. More shot density means less space for the shot to move in while passing through the choke. The whole purpose of the choke is to compress the load.

Tim
 
I agree with you Al. Another gimmick that waterfowl hunters will snap up so they can kill them at 100 yards.
Click to expand...

Well, they and try and kill at 100 yards...I totally agree it's juat another product to give a guy overconfidence in his shotguns ability and will just lead to more cripples and wasted game.

Chuck
 
I'll stick with my regular old round steel 3" 1 1/4oz, 1450 FPS #3s.
When I do my job, they do theirs.
 
What about the Federal stuff that shoots 1700fps.....WOW!. That's like shooting a rifle with velocity like that! What kind of pressure and recoil does that produce?
 
What about the Federal stuff that shoots 1700fps.....WOW!. That's like shooting a rifle with velocity like that! What kind of pressure and recoil does that produce?


Tom, ever since the phrase, "Speed Kills" was coined, manufacturers have capitalized on it. I think Winchester came out with 1550fps on their Xperts and even I, back then said, "WOW"! Then Kent came out with the shells that were at 1625fps and now we have Federal at 1700fps. These folks are making money and that is good. Helps the economy. Most of my shells that I shoot are at the 1200+fps up to about 1400fps. Just 2 3/4".
Al
Click to expand...
 
I shoot #4 hevi shot or #4 Bismuth- don't worry about velocity- tight choke, tight pattern- either miss them or kill them- very few cripples. I use my rusty steel shells from byegone days for cripples loads- 3 1/2 #1s do a job- Hey, you sunk my battleship!
 
I only care about velocity when it comes to lead... . I was stay constant with the velocity on the shells I buy.
 
Carl, my favorite load is the 1 1/4 oz. 1400fps Federal or Winchester Xperts and I hunt every day of the season plus travel all over. I shoot it through and Light Modified choke also, not Improved Modified or even Modified chokes and it performs great on big ducks, Specks, Snows and even decoying Canadas.

I was given a case of the 1700fps Remingtons by their produck manager this past season and shot two boxes and gave the rest away. Too fast and blown patterns from what I could see plus the recoil is brutal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top