16ga.com ~ View topic

Patterning Steel loads on 36 inch wide paper at 25 yards I had a richochet hit me in the face. A real stinger. In hundreds if not thousands of patterning shots, only time it ever happened.

Joined: 22 Jan 2015 Posts: 345

It’s incredible how some courts accept non-scientific testimony as credible evidence in matters entirely out of the courts experience, with no real use of critical thinking apparent. I recall a Judge Judy case in which she heard testimony from a home owner who showed puctures of an automobile that was apparently struck by a small object (bullet?). The home owner blaimed some fellas who were shooting small caliber rifle at a dirt pile approximately 500 yards away, and the home owner said the object struck their parked car while they could hear the gun fire.
The shooters presented pictures of an overhead view of the neighborhood which showed all concerned areas, and that the range shooting direction was pointed 180 degrees from the direction of homw owners. The shooters also pointed out to the judge that the supposed bullet strike on vehicle was already rusty the same afternoon that the call was placed and a sheriff’s deputy came to stop them from shooting because of the complaint.
The judge treated the shooters as irresponsible knukle heads and made no attempt to understand or question how a bullet would travel in the direction required to reach said vehicle, or question the validity of when vehicle was actually damaged. Of course in this environment, the shooters lost their case.

I've seen and had a few weird things happen from a richocet. Probably 35+ years ago we were hunting quail on the abandoned Rock Island railroad line in south central Nebraska before they pulled the rails and ties. I was standing beside my buddy while the other guys were walking away from us and started shooting at some quail. They were probably at least 60-70 yards away and after a shot I felt a burning in my left calf, like I had been stung by a bee. I slapped it a couple of times but it kept burning so I dropped my pants to see what it was. I had on canvas hunting pants and cotton long underwear. I had a small spot of blood on my underwear and a #6 shot had broken the skin of my calf and was lodged just under the skin. I popped it out and showed my buddy. We both know the other guys were shooting away from us, not towards us. The only thing we could figure was that shot hit part of the rail and came back to hit me. That is the only thing we could think of. That incident was the genesis for me to always wear shooting glasses with impact resistant lens whenever I'm in the field. A shot with enough power to go through canvas hunting pants, cotton underwear and still break the skin would definitely take your eye!
AM

airmedic1,

Now that incident I can definitely believe, shot hitting a steel train track rail could do some very crazy ricocheting for sure. The same is not true of hitting a Duck no matter the angle. Duck wing or Breast is no where near as hard as a steel train track trail.

For a court to even consider using a writers opinion in an article as proof is more than just irresponsible. It almost sounds like they had drawn their opinion in favor of the plaintiff, no matter the actual truth.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Joined: 03 Sep 2014 Posts: 398 Location: Rochester, MN

John Singer,

The thread was about the legal case and how the court used an article of Don Zutz to influence the out come of the court case.

Yes I do not put much stock in Don Zutz as a gun expert, however he was a gun writer who many people liked, his knowledge of Classic American double guns IMO is very questionable at best. This theory of Ricocheting off a Duck, sounds just like some of his writing.

Zutz influenced many sportsmen with his gun writing opinions when he was alive, as an engineer I was never one of those sportsmen. I did not know him personally.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Joined: 03 Sep 2014 Posts: 398 Location: Rochester, MN

John,

From what I was told they used his article as expert testimony, for the plaintiff, that in itself is a problem IMO.

If you have more and different information please advise. Would love to hear it.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Joined: 03 Sep 2014 Posts: 398 Location: Rochester, MN

John,

That is as it should be, glad hear it.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Let me throw a different perspective at all of you. As a rabid duck hunter from about 1972 to 2002 or so, I have shot hundreds of crippled ducks on the water to finish them off or keep them from escaping (mostly), usually in flooded green timber in Arkansas (I rarely field hunted).

Cripples are tough to kill on the water, whether in the old days with lead or now with steel/etc. Most crippled ducks assume a low profile as they swim off, with little target offered. Even the ones that don't are not easy to kill. And they can swim faster than most folks can slosh through 1-2 feet of water in a pair of waders.

The reason they are hard to kill? Heavy, folded wings are protecting most of the vitals of the target. Unless the range is relatively close, few pellets penetrate folded wings very well. At 50 yards, most hardly penetrate at all. I have examined many a crippled duck that was shot on the water where large primary feathers and wing bones get sliced and diced by shot, but none penetrated to the backbone/upper chest area on the bird. Most of those ducks were finally retrieved because a shot hit the head or neck of the cripple. Some, despite being centered in a shotgun pattern, often more than once, escape.

Its not uncommon for multiple shots being used to subdue crippled mallards, particularly if the distance is over 40 yards.

The correct way to kill crippled ducks on the water is either to head shoot them if close enough, or if too distant to "pattern" heads, shoot at the junction of the water/duck or even slightly "below" the duck to put shot, some of it ricocheting upward, into vitals from below the folded wing level.

And if the mallard or wood duck is "lively" it may dive and pop its head up in a drift pile/weed pile. They are even harder to kill underwater!

Get a good dog, but realize that when a large bunch of mallards is lit in the woods with a hunting party of 4 or more, multiple cripples may hit the water, some at distances of 50 to 100 yards from where they lit. One dog may not find them all, as many may have swam a couple of hundred yards through flooded trees/brush by the time the dog gets to look for them.

What does this have to do with shot ricocheting off a duck? Well, in my opinion, it does ricochet off fold wings on crippled ducks, along the top of the back. I've seen too many "tracers" hit the water well behind these ducks and at acute angles when shooting at them to doubt that.

And I firmly believe that some shot will ricochet off water if the angle is right. In fact, I believe that is a key to killing crippled ducks on the water if they are out there very far.

Now, a real mind bender for me. Once when I was relatively new to duck hunting three of us hunted out of a boat in a deep slough. We liked one greenhead having the limit, so two of us unloaded our guns. A drake and a hen came in, and when my buddy shot one time there appeared to me to be a least 15-20 horizontal feet between the two ducks while the shooting distance wasn't over 20 yards. Both fell dead as a rock. A flyer? or a ricochet?

4Setters,

Most all Wood Duck hunters will definitely tell you that shot will Ricochet off water while trying to shoot a winged Duck on the water, it happens a lot. This is a completely different situation than a Flying Duck however. Your point is well taken.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man