16ga.com ~ View topic

Gentlemen,

At the present time there is a court case going on in a foreign country, the case is about a man who lost his eye sight in a Duck hunting accident. A supposed ricochet from another hunter shooting at the same Ducks about 40 yards out, is being blamed for the loss of this mans eye. They are charging the defendant with reckless endangerment. The defense is the Ricochet theory, written in one of Don Zutz articles.

What say you about this event, do you think the Ricochet off a Duck can actually take place some 40 yards away. All witnesses testify that the defendant did not shoot toward the injured party.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Joined: 31 Jan 2019 Posts: 55 Location: Idaho

Interesting theory. I have never heard, seen or considered a ricochet off a waterfowl of any kind;
With a very large shot size and low velocity round at just the right angle I assume that it may be possible.
But then again, I flunked out of rocket science 101 at the first exam.

Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 696 Location: WA/AK

Haven't seen such a thing off a bird, but have off a clay target. Back in the 1980s, the late Henry Thomas was sitting on the patio in front of the club trailer at the old Potomac River Gun Club at the mouth of Mattawoman Creek on the Maryland side of the river. The squad on the field was shooting station 8 high house. A pellet ricocheted off a target and hit Henry in the forehead lodging in his skin and drawing a bit of blood. Probably about forty yards from the clay target to where Henry was sitting.

Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 696 Location: WA/AK

Haven't seen such a thing off a bird, but have off a clay target. Back in the 1980s, the late Henry Thomas was sitting on the patio in front of the club trailer at the old Potomac River Gun Club at the mouth of Mattawoman Creek on the Maryland side of the river. The squad on the field was shooting station 8 high house. A pellet ricocheted off a target and hit Henry in the forehead lodging in his skin and drawing a bit of blood. Probably about forty yards from the clay target to where Henry was sitting.

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2126 Location: Hudson,Wy

I can't say I've ever seen evidence of shot ricochetting off of a bird. Even at a glancing angle, it seems that the easily moveable feathers would indeed move and negate the possibility.

I can say from experience that I once took a pattern of #5 shot at under 30 yards and it did nothing more than slightly scare and more than slightly annoy me. Had a pellet struck my eye, I imagine it would have hurt but am unsure it would have caused blindness. I base that partly on an experience where I took a yellow jacket (wasp) to the eye at highway speeds, as in direct impact. It hurt like the dickens. I have also had some ricochetting cutting disc fragments when a disc grenades at 10,000 rpm get me in the eye. Once again, darn painful but no penetration. I wear goggles instead of just glasses now when doing such things.

I know of one instance where a friend did take a #5 pellet to the cheek and it penetrated the short distance to the cheek bone. He still has it as a souvenir and safety reminder on his desk. The distance was very, very close, as in Cheney's lawyer close.

40 yards plus and loose eyesight from a pellet that had already expended some of it's energy ricochetting off of a duck? Have my doubts. BB steel shot or larger ricochetting off of a hard surface? That would be much more plausible since nearly 100% of the energy would be retained as a result of two non malleable (relatively) surfaces/ materials.

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2349 Location: West MI

Seems very unlikely but would need more data; shooter's & target positions, size & speed of pellet's, type of Duck, any other surfaces in the area...dock pilings, trees, bridge abutments, etc.

a far stretch....Have seen pellets get stuck in plastic wads, plausible that one held on just long enough to get side tracked.

My bud hit my forehead with a lead pellet that drew blood. A crossing Grouse, we were ~30y apart, he swung and shot at the bird between us ~45* & ~20y ahead. We're guessing it was off a tree limb certainly not off the bird.

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

Last summer, I was struck in the leg by #9 lead shot on a skeet field. It was my own shot on a #2 high house target. I broke the target and almost immediately was stung on the leg.

Real life .... when I 1st started shooting , about 8 , I was allowed to take the ole 97 out and pop crows/starlings . eventually curious about what a pattern was , found an old grain lid and hung it on the barb wire fence . Touched off a factory soft lead load and was nailed just below the eye with a ricochet . So LUCKY . Probably about 25/30 yrds . CAN HAPPEN ! ... I no longer let people shoot short 22's at the cabin anymore - ricochet everywhere ... We shoot tons of 410 at the club right now . League etc . Often get hit by BB's from those loads . Theory is the pellets spin off targets and return to the crowd . My theory is that as those little loads are loaded , pellets sit on the bar and end up in the powder and upon firing , blast back at the crowd . Either way , makes the glasses rule ssooo important . Actually have a hard time with a couple coaches for the kids who just don't get it .

New Zealand?
I would investigate the witnesses first, the expert second, the shotshell third and then consider an errant rather than a deflected pellet.

But, a steel pellet ricochet off a duck?....not quite the same as a small lead pellet ricochet off a spinning clay disc.
I enjoyed Zutz but "streaky" marks on a duck's feathers indicating lead pellet ricochets?
Bit tough to swaller.

Gentlemen,

I have to admit IMO this is another Don Zutz fallacy, that some foreign court is using because they do not want to properly investigate what really happened. Granted most of the Ducks I hunt are Wood Ducks, and I have never heard or witnessed any Ricocheting of shot off a Duck. Letting something like this be introduced into evidence in a court case shows what kind legal system this country really operates with.

IMO somebody else was also out there shooting at those Ducks and shot toward this man that lost his eye. Somebody needs to investigate this event more closely. Using an article of a sports writer, without actually proving a Ricochet can even happen off a Duck, is just plain irresistible.

I have seen lead shot Ricochet of hard wood trees in the Grouse woods and strike Grouse hunters, they were a lot closer than 40 yards away from the fly birds however. I have never seen it happen when the Grouse or Duck is hit however.

Don Zutz influenced a lot of sportsman with his writing, most of it payed for by gun companies to hype their products, he was not an expert at anything. I never saw this particular article the court case is talking about, however it sounds like some foolishness Don Zutz would actually make up.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

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

Was this not settled in 2017?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/92758389/shot-ricochet-off-duck-blamed-for-hunter-losing-an-eye

Guest

It was a piece of Skylab that finally came down. The National Enquirer covered it.

Mr. Zutz always impressed me as knowledgeable, down-to-earth and honest in his opinions.
His handloading book, especially so.

I'm sure we all have opinions and I would like to read the "ricochet" article....as it is hard for me to fathom that particular opinion or what drove it.
Sometimes tho, opinions get blown up a bit from where they began.
His contribution may simply have been pulled off the Internet and interpreted for and with reasons less than stellar.

John Singer,

I have no idea how old the legal case actually is, it was just recently sent to me in my e-mail, I read it and erased it as foolishness. Figured I would talk about it here on the 16 forum to see what the members thought of it.

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

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