A spreadsheet project (which I'm continually working on) currently sees the gel penetration of #6 lead pellets fired at a muzzle velocity of 1,135 FPS this way:

10 yards, 3.51"
20 yards, 2.70"
30 yards, 2.08"
40 yards, 1.60"
50 yards, 1.24"
60 yards, 0.95"
70 yards, 0.73"
80 yards, 0.57"
90 yards, 0.44"

Minimum humane lethality is generally defined to be 1.50" of gel penetration, which per my spreadsheet occurs at 42.7 yards.

 

Minimum humane lethality is generally defined to be 1.50" of gel penetration, which per my spreadsheet occurs at 42.7 yards.

Where did that "minimum humane lethality" number come from?

 

Just what I was looking for Silver_Is_Money. I really appreciate it.

Best
Bob

 

#4 Steel shot fired at a MV of 1,350 FPS has 1.50" of penetration at 41.6 yards per the current iteration of my spreadsheet.

 

it might say that, but i won't be the guy trying to prove it.

 

I can say for sure that at 1290 fps they go through one side of a squirrel and get caught in the other side of the pelt around 35 yards. Never heard any complaints though 😝.

I stoned a going away pheasant last year through the back end at about 25 yards with the same load.

 

I'm with Silver here, humane is the intended word. It is inhumane to have inadequate penetration when hunting game, even rats deserve a quick and painless death. Too far and or shot smaller than recommended for the distance and quarry. I never want to see a puff of feathers and the bird continue on it's way.

 

The 1.5" of penetration is the basic guide for humanely killing ducks I believe. Thanks everyone

 

If my spreadsheet is on the right track, a rather sweeping and overly simplistic ballpark generalization might structure the outlook for a sort of relative 50-60 yards downrange penetration equivalence roughly like this for the case of all of these shot types at a MV of 1,300 FPS:

Steel: #BB
Bismuth: #2
Lead: #4
TSS-18: #9

 

Penetration is only one part of killing efficiency with a shotgun. Pattern density and moreover pellet strikes is as important if not more so when it comes to efficiently dispatching game.

I'm not sure why the focus of this thread has become penetration needed for waterfowl considering the title is #6 LEAD. Anything that you'd typically use #6 lead for doesn't need 1.5" of penetration to kill and for those that remember...#6 lead will stone ducks at distances much greater than 42.7 yards if the shooter is up to the task of putting it on him.

 

"We would not use such materials as plywood, chipboard, cardboard, or gelatin blocks for measuring pellet penetration. All of these materials have huge differences in densities, water content, and elasticity when compared to bird tissues." -- Tom Roster

A good article, Lessons from the Most In-Depth Turkey Load Lethality Test of All Time , that shows the relationship between range and blowing a pellet through a turkey skull. More relevant to pheasant hunting when bone-breaking is involved, but a scientific approach to the matter.

"At 45 yards it took at least a No. 5 (.120-inch) high antimony lead pellet weighing an average of ~2.57 grains when launched at 1250 fps to be capable of penetrating completely through a turkey’s skull and cervical vertebrae to produce B-1 bagging. "

 

"We would not use such materials as plywood, chipboard, cardboard, or gelatin blocks for measuring pellet penetration. All of these materials have huge differences in densities, water content, and elasticity when compared to bird tissues." -- Tom Roster

A good article, Lessons from the Most In-Depth Turkey Load Lethality Test of All Time , that shows the relationship between range and blowing a pellet through a turkey skull. More relevant to pheasant hunting when bone-breaking is involved, but a scientific approach to the matter.

"At 45 yards it took at least a No. 5 (.120-inch) high antimony lead pellet weighing an average of ~2.57 grains when launched at 1250 fps to be capable of penetrating completely through a turkey’s skull and cervical vertebrae to produce B-1 bagging. "

It would be difficult to dispute Roster's findings, and I don't. Very nice article, thanks for posting it. I hope that the TSS tests will be published as well.

 

My current spreadsheet is indicating 2.00" of gel penetration for the case of #5 very hard lead (density = 10.72 g/CC) at 1,250 FPS MV and 45 yards.

For softer lead at a density of 11.1 g/CC the penetration for these same conditions computes at 2.15".

This as opposed to 1.66" of gel penetration for the case of #6 hard lead (density = 10.72 g/CC) at 1,250 FPS MV and 45 yards.

So if the 'minimally humane' recommendation of 1.5" equates to Ducks, then perhaps for larger size game such as Turkeys and Geese it's better to consider shot with at least 2" penetration. And one source suggested 3" bare minimum penetration for Coyotes.

Addendum: With apology, I should have mentioned at the onset that my spreadsheet's penetration calculations as reported within this thread are based upon a nominal ballistic gel that is 20% gelatin by weight. Penetration figures for the case of a far more commonly homemade 10% ballistic gel would be nominally twice as deep for all cases.

 

Perhaps some will remember the meteoric rise of denser than lead shot, from Hevi-Shot, Federal, Winchester, and Remington. Seemingly, everyone couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon, then most of it was quickly discontinued due to lack of sales: Winchester HD, Wingmaster HD, Federal Heavyweight 15g /cc, along with the demise of Nice Shot, Kent Tungsten Matrix, and other tungsten blends that approached the density of lead.

Now, Federal, Remington Ammunition, and Hevi-Shot are all the same company, Kinetic Group, soon to be owned by CSG of Prague. Winchester has stayed away from the tungsten business thus far. Fiocchi has TSS “Golden Turkey” loads, but little else. CSG already owns 70% of Fiocchi.

I'm better at foretelling the past than predicting the future, but TSS looks to me to be 90% turkey-oriented, with half of the current sales in .410 and 20 gauge. Regardless of how good (or not) anyone thinks TSS is, the price is a turn-off for many and that does not look to change. On any busy dove or skeet field, there are 100x the Gun Club hulls to pick up vs. STS hulls. Folks don't seem to care about 6% vs. 2% antimony lead shot-- they care far, far less about TSS. Steel wins the popularity contest in the duck blind, with no indication of change.

 

they all add up to cost.
nobody wants to spend 5$ every time they pull the trigger.
maybe at an elephant or the like,,,, but a stupid bird?
nope,,, just nope, another one will be along.

 

Yes, and when the average guy continues to have mixed results on 30 to 40 yard birds and rarely connects with a 50/60 yard bird that $5 a shell gets even more painful.

Skills are king over chokes, loads, shot size, shot type, barrel length etc. and that will never change.

 

WOW did you guys take this off topic.

 

.......and you expected ??

 

I have the KPY Shotshell Ballistics program and it uses 20% gel. I am pretty sure that the FBI and most Law Enforcement use 10% gel in their testing.

With KPY most guys want 1.50" of penetration for ducks, 2.20" of penetration for small geese and 2.50" for big Honkers. For coyotes I want 3.70" of penetration to reliably break down or kill 30 to 35 pound coyotes. For about 20 years I killed quite a few coyotes with with lead BB shot and it worked pretty good up to about 40 to 45 yards. So when I got KPY Shotshell Ballistics I saw that 3.70" of 20% gel penetration gave 3.70" of penetration at 46.1 yards. That is how I came up with 3.70" of penetration needed to drop coyotes going straight away.

The KPY 20% gel penetration that gives 1.50" may go completely through a duck. KPY shows 20% gel penetration not bird or animal penetration.

From KPY
1135 fps lead #6 shot gets 1.50" of gel penetration at 38.8 yards and has 1.76 lbs. of energy.
1350 fps lead #7-1/2 shot gets 1.50" of gel penetration at 30.3 yards and has 1.52 lbs. of energy.
1500 fps steel #4 shot gets 1.50" of gel penetration at 32.0 yards and has 2.90 lbs. of energy.
1500 fps steel BBB shot gets 3.70" of gel penetration at 18.9 yards and has 17.39 lbs. of energy.
1300 fps lead BB shot gets 3.70" of gel penetration at 46.1 yards and has 11.82 lbs. of energy.
1300 fps Rem HD BB shot gets 3.70" of gel penetration at 62.4 yards and has 10.83 lbs. of energy.
1300 fps TSS #4 shot gets 3.70" of gel penetration at 78.9 yards and has 5.22 lbs. of energy.

What KPY Shotshell Ballistics does not show is how many more broken bones you get with the Tungsten "denser than lead" shot types compered to lead shot.

I have to hunt with lead free shot so for hunting coyotes I use 12g/cc shot, 15g/cc shot and TSS 18g/cc shot. Great penetration is what makes the denser than lead shot types work so good not more energy.

 

I just used my version of KPY, and I got 40.1 yards with magnum shot and 42.3 with chilled lead.

 

Quoting Randy Wakeman as he supports the validity of ballistic gel penetration:

Shotgun Pellet Penetration For Wingshooters

But, thankfully, now we know and can make far more educated choices when it comes to suitability of shot to game. The practical application of this is straightforward. Now that we have better information about pellet penetration than ever before, we can do a better job selecting ammunition for the game we hunt. We can select loads with a minimum of 1.5 inches of penetration for mallards, a minimum of 1.75 inches of penetration for wild pheasants, and a minimum of 2.25 inches of penetration for Canadian geese at the ranges we wish to take them. The rest is straightforward as well. It is off to the pattern board to show that our load places the requisite minimum 3-4 pellets on the vitals of the bird without fail, again at the ranges at which we intend to shoot.

And:

Steel, Lead, and the Rule of Three for Shotshells

 

Quoting Randy Wakeman as he supports the validity of ballistic gel penetration:

You don't need to quote me, I'm right here. I support more and better information, that is fundamental. Developed for killing humans, ballistic gel is clearly of value killing mammals in the soft tissue disruption dept.

We know now that is is not relevant at all to birds, or as Tom Roster stated "No Correlation." No one has shown otherwise.

 

The way I look at it the 20% gel penetration is for comparing shot types and sizes at different speeds so you can see how much difference there is in the penetration at different distances. I would rather shoot birds and animals with shot sizes and types that provide more than enough penetration to make clean kills than shoot a shot size or type that patterns great but doesn't penetrate deep enough to get to the vitals or break bones.

Back in the old days I shot different loads and shot types into plywood and catalogs to see the difference in penetration between different loads.

I did the below penetration test with catalogs back in November of 2007.

The copper coated lead BB's from the Federal Premium shells were found between pages 89 and 127 of the first catalog, the copper coated lead BB pellets were all torn up. Most of the Rem HD BB's were found between the first and second catalog, 355 pages. Three of the HD BB's were found at pages 27, 44 and 62 of the second catalog. The Rem HD T shot was found between the first and second catalog "355 pages" and as far as 230 pages deep into the second catalog. The Rem HD pellets looked brand new and round after digging them out of the catalogs.

The Rem HD BB loads that shot through about 3 times more pages into the catalogs than the lead BB loads were way more deadly on coyotes.

FBI Testing Protocol
The FBI tests bullets in 10 percent gelatin blocks which are engineered to simulate human tissue.

If the FBI uses 10% gel for testing penetration I don't see what is wrong with using 20% gel to to simulate bird tissue.

 

If the FBI uses 10% gel for testing penetration I don't see what is wrong with using 20% gel to to simulate bird tissue.

What is horribly wrong is that it doesn't. Tom Roster proved it.

 

The FBI's criteria for calibrating their 10% Ballistic Gel is to fire a 0.177" steel BB (weighing 0.35 grams) at close range and at a measured 590 FPS. When being calibrated the gel must be at a uniform 39 degrees F. throughout. The steel BB must penetrate to a depth of 2.95" minimum and 3.74" maximum, for a nominal (ideal) penetration depth of 3.345". If it does the Ballistic Gel passes, and if it doesn't it fails.

I just changed the default (selectable as it is, so 20% is easy to set if that still has any meaning) on my spreadsheet to 10% gel, and I also set it to read 3.345" of penetration for a 0.177" steel BB (weighing 0.35 grams) hitting it at 590 FPS.

 

FBI 10% Gel:

Ballistic Gelatin Mixing Procedures Practiced By The FBI - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc.

In December, 1988, the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit (FTU) designed and implemented the FBI Ammunition Tests. The test designs are based on research and consultation with experts in the fields of wound ballistics, forensic pathology, wound researc...

press.hornady.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin

Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part III

There's a clear difference between synthetic and organic gelatin that law enforcement needs to understand

www.police1.com

https://static.hornady.media/site/hornadyle/files/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-1-3.pdf

Ballistics ordnance gelatine - How different concentrations, temperatures and curing times affect calibration results - PubMed

A study was undertaken to determine whether different concentrations of ordnance gelatine, water types, temperatures and curing times would have an effect on projectile penetration of a gelatine tissue surrogate. Both Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Apparently 20% concentration Gel is the NATO standard. And apparently everyone else uses 10%.

 

10% or 20% likely means more to law enforcement types than to an actual bird hunter......somehow bird hunters manage, within a commonsense range of options in pellet size, to find success enough afield.

Or (ring the bell), we either change up or accept that other factors were in play.
Been that way since before Lubaloy was an option, imo.

 

An obvious Gel making mistake would be to confuse percent by weight with percent by volume, as some have done when making Ballistic Gel.

 

It now seems to me that using the NATO 20% gel standard with shotshells is not the best plan, since 20% is more oriented toward 5.56 NATO requirements, where shooting at 10% would simply pass clear through and keep on going, and thereby result in useless information. But unfortunately the common to the internet references to penetrations of 1.5", 1.75",2.25",3.7", etc.. for various of game are all based upon 20%, and likely also upon KPY Shotshell Ballistics software.

 

Likely there is little correlation due first to 20% gel instead of 10%, and due second to the likelihood of someone magically pulling numbers such as 1.5", 1.75", 2.25", etc. out of a magic hat way back when, whereby the entire internet crowd merely followed along from that point forward like misguided sheeple.

If hard and factual 10% gel penetration studies were factually undertaken for the various of hunted game then things as regard correlation would well more than likely be significantly different. All that Roster and company seem to have debunked was likely information with no real world validity to begin with.

If the FBI and Police can equate 10% gel to human tissue, such as they do, and NATO can equate it's small arms effectiveness upon 20% gel, such as they do, then properly undertaken real (hard) science can do likewise to equate game to 10% gel.

There is little in our modern day and age that can't be rather decently math modeled. All that's initially required is an accumulation of hard 'real world' data.

 

If hard and factual 10% gel penetration studies were factually undertaken for the various of hunted game then things as regard correlation would well more than likely be significantly different. All that Roster and company seem to have debunked was likely information with no real world validity to begin with.

If the FBI and Police can equate 10% gel to human tissue, such as they do, and NATO can equate it's small arms effectiveness upon 20% gel, such as they do, then properly undertaken real (hard) science can do likewise to equate game to 10% gel.

What does a bird have in common with a human? Right there it is apparent that reliance on gel numbers makes no sense for birds.

The simplest terms like "humane" have no actual meaning. In war, the use of expanding bullets is prohibited as they are "not humane." However, use of non-expanding bullets is prohibited for hunting as they are "not humane." Please pick one.

 

See: Father of Modern Wound Ballistics – Small Arms Defense Journal .

Dr. Fackler’s combat surgery experience, reinforced by his research and extensive laboratory shooting, refuted many common myths regarding terminal ballistics. including exaggerated M16/5.56×45 hyperbole by its pre-acquisition proponents or UNCCW challengers. In particular, he and other surgeons experienced in wound treatment confirmed there is no valid basis as to a relationship between kinetic energy deposit and tissue damage as a measure of wounding effectiveness. As a result of his work, major enhancement was achieved in test and evaluation of small caliber terminal ballistics and medical treatment of gunshot wounds. His expertise was adopted by NATO for the chapter on missile (small arms)-caused wounds in the 1988 edition of its Emergency War Surgery Handbook. Ten-percent ballistic gel is used by the Small Arms Ammunition Branch, Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane (Crane, Indiana) and the Ballistic Research Facility, Federal Bureau of Investigation. The latter conducts ammunition test and evaluation for state, local and federal law enforcement agencies and in support of the DOD mandatory law of war review of all newmilitary ammunition. In 2006, the Joint Service Wound Ballistics Integrated Product Team accepted 10% ballistic gel as a testing medium, including calibration. 10% ballistic gel is also employed by private industry.

As is the case with firing into wood, clay or soap, or similar media, Dr. Fackler’s methodology is a form of small arms terminal ballistics comparison. Its value lies in 10% ballistic gel being the most accurate replication of human soft tissue.

Dr. Fackler authored numerous peer-reviewed authoritative articles summarizing his combat surgery experience, his research work and lessons learned from it. In 1991 he founded and served as editor of the international Wound Ballistics Review until publication ended a decade later.

Dr. Fackler’s retirement did not conclude the U.S. Government’s reliance on his expertise. On April 11, 1986, FBI agents engaged in a 4 ½-minute gun battle with two suspected bank robbers. The two suspects succumbed from their wounds but not before one of them killed two FBI agents and wounded five others. To its credit the FBI launched a full review into the lack of effectiveness of the handgun ammunition it employed. It called upon outside medical and other experts, including Dr. Fackler, to participate in meetings it hosted in 1987 and 1992. Its focus was on terminal ballistic effectiveness rather than undefined lay terms, such as “increased lethality” and “stopping power”.

Other corrective measures followed. In August 1988, the first steps were taken in establishment of a world-class FBI Ballistic Research Facility to evaluate terminal effectiveness of law enforcement ammunition, utilizing 10% ballistic gel, for dissemination of test and evaluation results to law enforcement departments. In 1989, the FBI published “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness,” based on comments at its 1987 experts meeting.

 

Roughly speaking, 1.50" penetration as seen for my earlier 20% gel based spreadsheet correlates to ~3.70" of penetration for my new 10% gel at 39 degrees F. based spreadsheet.