Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 5220821

The killing efficiency of soft iron shot

R. Andrews·J. R. Longcore
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A cooperative research effort between the ammunition industry and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is aimed at finding a suitable non-toxic substitute for lead shot. A contract study by an independent research organization evaluated ways of coating or detoxifying lead shot or replacing it with another metal. As a result of that study, the only promising candidate is soft iron. Previous tests of hard iron shot had suggested that its killing effectiveness was poor at longer ranges due to the lower density. In addition, its hardness caused excessive damage to shotgun barrels. A unique, automated shooting facility was constructed at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to test the killing effectiveness of soft iron shot under controlled conditions. Tethered game-farm mallards were transported across a shooting point in a manner simulating free flight. A microswitch triggered a mounted shotgun so that each shot was 'perfect.' A soft iron shot, in Number 4 size, was produced by the ammunition industry and loaded in 12-gauge shells to give optimum ballistic performance. Commercial loads of lead shot in both Number 4 and Number 6 size were used for comparison. A total of 2,010 ducks were shot at ranges of 30 to 65 yards and at broadside and head-on angles in a statistically designed procedure. The following data were recorded for each duck: time until death, broken wing or leg bones, and number of embedded shot. Those ducks not killed outright were held for 10 days. From these data, ducks were categorized as 'probably bagged,' 'probably lost cripples,' or survivors. The test revealed that the killing effectiveness of this soft iron shot was superior to its anticipated performance and close to that obtained with commercial lead loads containing an equal number of pellets. Bagging a duck, in terms of rapid death or broken wing, was primarily dependent on the probability of a shot striking that vital area, and therefore a function of range. There was no indication that iron shot would result in greater crippling loss. Despite the apparent effectiveness of this iron shot, transition to its use in waterfowl hunting is not now possible. The sample used for this test was produced by a laboratory procedure that is unsuitable for manufacture. There is no process for producing soft iron shot in the quantities needed. Industry is doing its best to resolve this problem.

Explore related subjects

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources ConferenceArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R. Andrews, J. R. Longcore. 1969. The killing efficiency of soft iron shot. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5220821

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2006

Coherence between harvest and habitat management -- Joint venture perspectives

Introduction: In recent months, an ad hoc group of waterfowl scientists, representing the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) Adaptive Harvest Management (ARM) Task Force and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Committee, have collaborated as a Joint Task Group (JTG) to assess options for unifying the population goals guiding waterfowl harvest management and habitat management. The JTG has been charged with bringing coherence to the population goals of the two programs. Characterizing the problem as one of coherence indicates value judgments exist regarding its significance or perhaps existence. For purposes of this paper, we characterize the lack of coherence as the absence of consistent population goals in the two related components of waterfowl conservation habitat and harvest management. Our purpose is to support continued dialogue on the respective goals of these programs and the possible implications of discordant goals to habitat joint ventures. Our objectives are two-fold: (1) illustrate how NAWMP habitat management goals and strategies have been interpreted and pursued in both breeding and wintering areas, and (2) provide perspectives on the linkages between regional habitat management programs and harvest management. The Lower Mississippi Valley and the Prairie Pothole joint ventures (LMVJV and PPJV, respectively) will be used as examples.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗
USGS2002

Avian vacuolar myelinopathy: a newly recognized fatal neurologic disease of eagles, waterfowl, and other birds

Wildlife biologists and health specialists have been frustrated by a long list of negative findings in their AVM investigations, however studies continue to provide pieces of information to aid the determination of the cause and its source. Available data indicated that AVM may have been present since at least 1990, occurs in at least five states, has been documented during October through April at sites of wintering populations of birds where the exposure apparently occurs, and has killed at least 90 bald eagles. Birds with AVM have difficulty or inability to fly, swim, walk, or perch, but there has been resolution of clinical signs in some affected coots. The list of affected species continues to grow, but remains confined to wild avians, including bald eagle, American coot, great horned owl, killdeer, Canada goose, mallard, ring-necked duck and bufflehead. The effects of the AVM agent on mammals, including human beings, are unknown. A neurotoxicant of manmade or natural origin is the suspected cause of AVM because no infectious disease agents, such as viruses, bacteria, parasites and prions, have been found, and the lesion and epizootiology of AVM resemble those of toxicoses. Additionally it is documented, experimentally, that exposure to raptors can occur through ingestion of infected coots. Collaborative studies will continue in the effort to identify the cause of AVM, its geographic distribution, and the range of species susceptibility. Hopefully, this information can be used to identify measures that might be taken to reduce the impact of AVM on the wildlife resource. Multiple agencies, institutions, and individuals must rely on each other's expertise in the multidisciplinary approach to this problem, persevere in their efforts and take advantage of serendipity that presents itself during investigations of this newly recognized cause of wild bird mortality.

Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina↗