My favorite load for wood ducks is Express steel 7 shot from Walmart. Stone dead.

That's fair. I agree with you. I would probably argue there are situations where someone should be on the hook even if they make a "reasonable effort". If I shoot a bird on a big lake, wind at my back, without a dog, and it gets swept out before I can reach it, that's really on me. I shouldn't have been in that position in the first place.

Steel is 7.5 or so g/cc, bismuth is 9.6, lead is 11.3 or so.
It's literally science that it's better.

Watch any duck hunting show, there's more birds that aren't dead than dead when they hit the water.

Get your so-called "science" out of here. This is place for real men who know what they see with their God-given eyes.

Apparently you are correct.

Given that the topic is ethics, I have a question.

First off, I am new to duck hunting, so I don't have a lot of background or experience to guide me. Is it ethical to shoot an un-wounded duck that lands on the water within killing range?

I've been out with a few groups/guides where this was requested of me because I had the best angle to a bird that had landed on the water. It didn't feel right to me, but these guys have been hunting ducks way longer than me, so I shot the bird. Is that typical?

It's called wing-shooting for a reason, that seems like the fair play there. Not shooting them on the water. Dispatching a wounded bird is OK, that's just merciful.

I figured this was a good place to ask. Thanks for your input.

I am answering this with the definition of ethical being that you take the life of the duck with as little suffering as possible.

It is not unethical to shoot an unwounded duck on the water if that is your best chance of ensuring the bird dies and goes home with you. Less sporting, maybe, but not unethical.

Many seasoned hunters may deem it less sportsman-like because the bird isn't flying...but I guarantee you they have shot a bird on the water that landed in the decoys before. Every has, and will do it. It is really up to you on if you want to make that shot. If you feel like its weird, don't do it and wait for a bird flying.

Just stating the facts smokey. The law is you must make a “reasonable effort” to retrieve the bird, every GW probably has different interpretation of that, so use common sense and if you don’t have any you are SOL.

I'll water swat all day long. If you're decoy spread fooled that bird into landing, fair game. That's the ultimate fooling

I would be surprised if you or I handled this much different in the field Guy. You like me me handle this facet by working at running an effective dog. I’m also betting, like me, if you lose a bird it is a rare occurrence that gnaws at you, regardless of the game wardens point of view. Which I think is the crux of this thread...

Water swatting... a necessary evil...if occasionally a bird is landing outside the spread or off to one side or the other...and the bird lands before the "boss" calls the shot...I say the guy with the best angle swats the duck on the water...the last thing you need is a live decoy outside of the spread attracting more birds to that location...I won't even let birds sit that are out of range and beyond the spread...they become a magnet for the next birds that work...swat 'em or chase them off...the only exception to that rule for me is if I'm hunting solo...then I try to sparingly call...to see if I can get the bird to swim into range...where i will promptly swat him...it's like the adage about hunting Scaled(Blue) quail...show me a quail hunter that won't shoot Scaled Quail when they are running...and I will show you a quail hunter that has never tasted Scaled Quail.

My opinion is that if I fooled a duck well enough that they land in my spread, I have won the game. I feel like ducks landing in my spread is the ultimate prize! I completely fooled them which is what the goal is. Having said that, I usually try to jump them up and then drop them just above the water, but it sometimes just works out that they get water swatted. I don't like to discriminate.

I like to line them up on the water, water swat 4 with one shot, shoot a double when they fly up. Quick limit, drink coffee and make some breakfast.

Just a comment about steel shot. The velocity of modern steel shot shells has increased to make up for the loss of energy from it being lighter than lead. Steel shot fired at 1600 fps has almost identical energy as lead shot fired at 1300 fps. Energy = weight x velocity (squared). Just a little increase in velocity increases impact energy by a lot. Modern waterfowl steel shells are just as deadly as old school lead. Numbers don't lie.

This is example of how numbers absolutely DO lie. Energy downrange will be much lower for that steel shot vs lead.

Yeah, that's def not true. I've got a book and I'll post some numbers this weekend to disprove that scientifically

More on this:

Steel #2, 1600 fps
Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec)
0 1600 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
2 1507 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.003
4 1375 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.008
6 1290 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.012
8 1204 11.3 0.1 0.0 0.017
10 1136 10.1 0.1 0.0 0.022
15 1025 8.2 0.3 0.0 0.036
20 946 7.0 0.5 0.0 0.051
25 875 6.0 0.9 0.0 0.068
30 818 5.2 1.4 0.0 0.085
35 762 4.5 2.1 0.0 0.104
40 707 3.9 3.0 0.0 0.125
45 655 3.3 4.2 0.0 0.147
50 606 2.9 5.6 0.0 0.171

Lead #2, 1300 fps
Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec)
0 1300 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
2 1249 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.004
4 1193 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.009
6 1146 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.014
8 1103 13.7 0.1 0.0 0.020
10 1074 13.0 0.1 0.0 0.025
15 1007 11.4 0.3 0.0 0.040
20 953 10.2 0.6 0.0 0.055
25 904 9.2 1.0 0.0 0.071
30 860 8.3 1.5 0.0 0.088
35 819 7.5 2.2 0.0 0.106
40 779 6.8 3.0 0.0 0.125
45 742 6.2 4.0 0.0 0.144
50 705 5.6 5.3 0.0 0.165

Lead #4, 1300 fps
Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec)
0 1300 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.000
2 1242 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.004
4 1179 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.009
6 1129 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.014
8 1084 8.6 0.1 0.0 0.020
10 1054 8.1 0.1 0.0 0.025
15 984 7.1 0.3 0.0 0.040
20 922 6.2 0.6 0.0 0.056
25 868 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.073
30 820 4.9 1.6 0.0 0.091
35 777 4.4 2.3 0.0 0.109
40 733 3.9 3.2 0.0 0.129
45 691 3.5 4.3 0.0 0.150
50 649 3.1 5.8 0.0 0.173


But how many people are actually shooting steel at 1600 fps? I would bet not a majority.

Steel #3, 1450 fps
Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec)
0 1450 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.000
2 1345 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.004
4 1260 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.008
6 1174 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.013
8 1102 7.7 0.1 0.0 0.019
10 1058 7.1 0.1 0.0 0.024
15 966 5.9 0.3 0.0 0.039
20 890 5.0 0.6 0.0 0.055
25 823 4.3 1.0 0.0 0.073
30 763 3.7 1.6 0.0 0.092
35 706 3.2 2.4 0.0 0.112
40 652 2.7 3.5 0.0 0.134
45 599 2.3 4.8 0.0 0.158
50 550 1.9 6.5 0.0 0.184


Bismuth #3, 1450
Yards..Vel....Energy...Drop...Drift....TOF(sec)
0 1450 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.000
2 1363 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.004
4 1290 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.008
6 1214 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.013
8 1151 10.3 0.1 0.0 0.018
10 1096 9.3 0.1 0.0 0.024
15 1012 7.9 0.3 0.0 0.038
20 944 6.9 0.5 0.0 0.053
25 882 6.0 0.9 0.0 0.070
30 830 5.3 1.5 0.0 0.087
35 779 4.7 2.2 0.0 0.106
40 731 4.1 3.1 0.0 0.126
45 685 3.6 4.2 0.0 0.147
50 642 3.2 5.5 0.0 0.169


Regardless, kinetic energy is a bad predictor of shot effectiveness. Its boring cousin Momentum, and better yet Momentum Density (when correlating penetration) work better.

KE is useful, but as zbot says, there's more to it than that.
From what I gather it takes somewhere from 2-2.25 ft/lb to get a stone cold kill.

Below are 3 pics from my book though. It shows you the similarities of KE between a 3" 4 steel, 5 bismuth, 6 lead that are shot with similar velocities. Look at the pellet difference in a 5 bismuth over 4 steel. Maybe that's why they say bismuth hammers so much harder than steel.

The last pic is penetration difference of, I believe, #5 boss over #4 steel. Almost double the penetration at a slower velocity.
Proofs in the pudding, or in this case, the ballistic gel.