Tungsten Super Shot For Deer And Hog - Expanding The Definition of Buckshot.

[RMcL]

It appears that TSS shot as small as #2 (.15") is now considered a viable pellet size for deer and hog hunting. Indeed, number two TSS is reported to give complete penetration on deer at normal shotgun ranges.

This article from the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, MS tells the tale:

New ammo a game-changer for public land hogs

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/...nd/1016614001/

And the Mississippi based ammunition company:
https://apex-ammunition.myshopify.co...ator-hogs-deer

It appears that TSS #2, BB or T sizes* would also be a game changer for hunters in many areas with overlapping seasons for waterfowl, feral hog and deer.

Your thoughts?

* Diameters: #2 = .15", BB = .18" and T = .20"

[bamaranger]

Boy, I dunno 'bout that. I've mused more than once that tungsten buckshot would be fearsome stuff, but I never thought about going that small.

Tungsten is what, almost 1.5X heavier than lead ( I really don't know, 1.3X?beats me)? Seems like the fellows shooting gobblers with the stuff drop 2-3 shot sizes. If you were a #6 lead man, you'd be happy with TSS #8-9 (again, I'm not real sure). So applying that logic to medium and big game, if you were happy with 00buck lead, #1B or #3B TSS would seem an option. If lead #4B was your poison, I could see where the argument could be made for T-buck or BB in TSS. Again, all speculation.

I'd be really curious about pellet counts. If I recall, there are 50 T-buck pellets(.20) in a hevishot 3" mag load. Cut that down to say....35 pellets for TSS (?) . Beats me. Would it be any more effective than lead #4B with 41 pellets?

The old adage used to be pattern fails before penetration. TSS apparently is changing all that. I'm going to go read the links.

[bamaranger]

I can't get past the cookies and ads in the article. Apex Ammo website shows their entire product line "sold out". Somebody's bought the stuff, even at near $10.oo a shot!!!!!

[T. O'Heir]

#2 shot is good for geese and bowling pins only. Buckshot of any size is unreliable for deer.

[Capt Rick Hiott]

,,,"Buckshot of any size is unreliable for deer."

Hahahaha,,,,well then why is it called "Buck Shot"

Im sure there have been over a million bucks with buck shot.

[Bill DeShivs]

Another one of O'Heir's nonsensical drive by posts.

[Blindstitch]

Every year during duck/goose season and the end of deer season I wonder what the limits would be for a BB load to take down a deer in case I bumped into one real close. I may be wrong but I don't think we can carry buckshot in Wisconsin unless we have some wild cat license.

And then I come to my senses and realize the shot should be under 5 yards and I should just stick to the birds I came to hunt.

[RMcL]

Reports on larger TSS performance on deer and hogs seem to be slowly making it to the larger hunting market. Right now such ammo is the province of small companies and handloaders. So if you have links to such reports, I am sure many here would be interested.

On a related note, I have seen articles from the late 1940s on Central and South American Brocket deer hunting with shotguns and buckshot. Lead BB and T were described as the prefered buckshot sizes for these diminutive deer.

[jimbob86]

Hahahaha,,,,well then why is it called "Buck Shot"

For the same reason the college in Evanston, Illinois is called "Northwestern" : It was apt when it was named, but time made the term silly. It really is pretty inaccurate beyond archery distance, and a rifled slug in the same scenario is much more accurate and lethal. It was used when all one had was a shotgun, and a single ball out of a smoothbore was pretty inaccurate ..... several slightly smaller shot gave more chances of hits .... but it's still scattered shot- outside of spitting distance, one might hit his quarry anywhere ..... but that's better than no hit at all, when you are shootin' for food, right?
Better tech and the fact that nearly everyman can afford that tech mean that buckshot is a poor choice for hunting deer ..... home defense? That's all at spitting distance (unless you live in a giant mansion), and even one hit is better than harsh words ..... and one does not care if the perp runs away with a wound that's not immediately fatal ... so long as he stops doing whatever it was that got him shot .....

[bamaranger]

Certain driveby comments these days have lead me to the point that I just will no longer respond to their content.

I have watched Youtube videos reviewing T-shot and BB shot TSS from Apex. A dissected 12 ga, 1 oz load of T-shot had 23 pellets. Accordingly, 1-1/4 load would have 29, and a 2 oz load 46. Those numbers are somewhat akin to the counts one might get for lead #4 buck. The pellet weights are similar too, with lead #4B having a slight edge.....18.2 grains to 20.(6) gr. I have experimented with lead #4 buck a fair amount for called coyotes. This T "space shot" appears to pattern far better than any lead buck shot ever will. In the videos, penetration in a gel target at all ranges was near double what a lead equivalent size pellet would do, ie, TSS BB punched 15", lead BB 9" .

So what? My conclusion from this single video and no experience of my own is just speculation, but seems to align with my original thoughts, that TSS T-buck might perform as well as lead #4 buck on deer. The denser patterns offered by "space shot" would make it a much better coyote load, and would put more of the .20 pellets on a deer as well. But is it a viable deer/hog load?

Again, just talk (well text). I see TSS T-buck as a slight improvement over #4B lead due to its abillity to pattern tighter, but it will be about equal in penetration. Meaning it is likely still a 40-45 Yd deer proposition (if legal) at best. TSS BB shot would be a bit behind that, as those pellets are even smaller. Where the stuff will likely shine is as a coyote shotgun load. All that of course if you can find it, and more importantly, can afford it.

NOt for me, but it's made interesting conversation.

[jmr40]

This is one of the few times I'm going to agree with O'Heir. I've no doubt the tungsten shot is an improvement, but I wouldn't pick any buckshot for hunting. It is an unreliable stopper on game or humans except at very close range. Even then I'd choose any rifle or handgun over buckshot.

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by jmr40

This is one of the few times I'm going to agree with O'Heir. I've no doubt the tungsten shot is an improvement, but I wouldn't pick any buckshot for hunting. It is an unreliable stopper on game or humans except at very close range. Even then I'd choose any rifle or handgun over buckshot.

Here in Michigan, most deer are shot at 40 yards or less. I have used #4 buckshot to kill at least 8 deer, (likely more...hard to keep track), 2 with #1 buckshot. Killed one with #4 birdshot broke its front leg, penetrated the chest cavity. Lost none. Lost zero meat to bloodshot meat or secondary projecties from bone fragments. This is my actual experience with buckshot and deer.

In order for your opinion that buckshot is not adequate for the task of taking deer, you must logically have actual experience with it and found it wanting. So, how many deer have you shot with #4 buckshot are reasonable range and have lost?

[jimbob86]

In order for your opinion that buckshot is not adequate for the task of taking deer, you must logically have actual experience with it and found it wanting. So, how many deer have you shot with #4 buckshot are reasonable range and have lost?

dahermit- One of the perks of a rational, reasoning mind, is that it allows humans to look at a situation that they understand fairly well and make informed inferences about it, without actually having to experience it ..... I don't have actually try driving a nail with a frozen banana to know it's not the best tool for the job, despite the cries of people saying "I've done it!" .... and no matter what Souper-dooper flyte Kontroll wadded, space age magic fairy dust containing buckshot one uses, it's pattern will not be as precise at 10, 20, 30 or 40 yards as single rifled slug ...... if "meat damage" is an issue, use a smaller guage, or a sabot'ed pistol bullet ...... the multiple scattered hits of buckshot are going to stuff more hair, hide and foreign material into it's several wound tracks than any single projectile ......

..... just because you did it one way, even several times, doesn't mean it's the best way, or even a good idea. Think about it, rationally. It might be "adequate" ..... but so is a pointy stick. There are better tools.

[jimbob86]

Even then I'd choose any rifle or handgun over buckshot.

I would, as well jmr, but some people can't- I understand that "shotgun season" is a thing over the river east of me in Iowa ..... maybe in Michigan, too .....

[dahermit]

..... just because you did it one way, even several times, doesn't mean it's the best way, or even a good idea. Think about it, rationally. It might be "adequate" ..... but so is a pointy stick. There are better tools.

I did it as an experiment (experimenting is something valued by the scientific community as part of the "Scientific Method".) as outlined by a family from Michigan's U.P. who admittedly were prolific poachers. They explained to me that large buckshot did not work because it did not put enough hits into the deer. They claimed that #4 buckshot was the answer inasmuch as with a duck, rabbit, pheasant, etc., "...you have to put enough lead into the game to be effective..." As an experiment, I started with the 27 pellet #4 buckshot load in a 12 gauge and found that, just as they claimed, it put the deer down reliably. When the 3" magnums became available, I began using the 41 pellet load of #4 buckshot. As for my experiance (my informal tests), not being a "good tool", I would suggest that my experimenting by actually shooting deer with small buckshot is more of a reliable tool than someone who has never shot a deer with small buckshot gut feeling (A.K.A. emotion) that it is inadequate. Please enlighten me as to what would be a better tool than actually shooting deer with small buckshot...ballistic gel?
".... just because you did it one way, even several times, doesn't mean it's the best way, or even a good idea. Think about it, rationally. It might be "adequate" ....." Please point out where I said any other than it worked well in the instances I used it. While you are "thinking about it rationally", note that three ellipses are the norm.

[lordvader]

I beg to differ on that. Yes it would be ineffective at long range, but within 30 yards it is effective. Shot a doe at 21 yards using Fed 12 gauge 00 buck with flite control wad. The doe hit the ground like a ton of bricks fell on her. That was pretty effective. Blind to feeder, 21 yards. I live in a state where I can use a rifle, but choose the shotgun because of the short range. Don't need a scope. Works for me.

[RMcL]

Originally Posted by lordvader

I beg to differ on that. Yes it would be ineffective at long range, but within 30 yards it is effective. Shot a doe at 21 yards using Fed 12 gauge 00 buck with flite control wad. The doe hit the ground like a ton of bricks fell on her. That was pretty effective. Blind to feeder, 21 yards. I live in a state where I can use a rifle, but choose the shotgun because of the short range. Don't need a scope. Works for me.

Well, it is quite easy to get 100% patterns of around ten inches or so with 00B from a cylinder bore at the longest distance you mentioned. (Bold above)

Notably, however, such tight close range patterns only represent the starting point in establishing the junction of minimum pattern and maximum range.

[jrothWA]

buckshot is good for those that pick thier shots.
Normally, I when stalking through the woods is buckshot in the chamber followed with slug [BRENNEKE],
Alsp I had been invited to private property, with the landowner and a NEWBIE hunter, The propertywas a long narrow rectangle, the Landowner was at center of property and the newbie was West of him and North of his location, so he could cover from his 45 obloique to due South,

I was North of both about 40 yards, so I choose to use my M12 16GA., with buckshot to minimize over travel. I was in a shoulder height tree stand and on a small rise, so I was had a down angle.

Saw nothing but I recognized those limitation as presented.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They explained to me that large buckshot did not work because it did not put enough hits into the deer. They claimed that #4 buckshot was the answer inasmuch as with a duck, rabbit, pheasant, etc., "...you have to put enough lead into the game to be effective..."

If putting lead into game was decisive, then #12 shot would be the best round ever. Penetration is important. Whether #4 buck works for you is going to depend on the ranges you encounter game, because shot loses energy quickly via drag. The smaller the shot, the faster this happens.

00 buck might not make as many holes; but it will deliver penetration over a better range of distances.

[The Happy kaboomer]

People on here poo pooing buckshot as a poor killer at distances probaly have never hunted with it or patterned or don't really know what they they are talking about. 00 buck in a good choked shotgun is easily a 60 deer killer. I know I've done it many times including last Monday.

[DockRock]

I am firmly in the camp of "I would rather use slugs or rifle bullets than buck, if possible". "If possible" is an important consideration because I used to live in Sweden and there were areas where only buck was allowed. In my experience, a confident hunter would never take a good shot beyond 50 meters (@55 yards) and 40 meters would be a more common self-imposed limit.

I hunt no terrain where I would choose buck over slugs, but it may exist somewhere.

But for the purposes of the discussion, let us assume that either to comply with a legal requirement or because of some strategy or tactic, buck is to be employed to hunt deer. Given the cost of Tungsten, the only reason to use it would be to increase the range of lethality. It can pattern better than lead, but wants some experimenting with choke based on my experience with TSS and Turkey loads.

So, if I were forced to, or had some reason I can't currently identify, to use 00 buck for deer, and I were confident with it to say, 60 yards (which I'm not), the only reason I would be interested in Tungsten would be if it gave me the ability to confidently reach out to 80 yards. Vastly increased cost to diminish shot size so that I could shoot deer at 60 yards with $10 a pop BB Tungsten makes no sense to me. Confident lethality at 80 yards with #4 Buck Tungsten might.

[Double Naught Spy]

It appears that TSS shot as small as #2 (.15") is now considered a viable pellet size for deer and hog hunting.

Translation: A company is marketing it and got a few folks to try it and they managed to make some kills. The company wants folks to consider it to be viable for hunting so they say it is now considered viable.

For example, this is one of those non-helpful sorts of product endorsements that sounds really good, but there isn't any information there that actually helps a consumer wanting to buy the product know how well it might be working...

"I've shot five times with it this year and dropped every animal," Cavin said. "I haven't shot an animal that has moved, yet. It's been from 15 to 45 yards."

Four of those animals have been hogs, and one was a sow weighing more than 150 pounds he shot at 45 yards. He also tried the No. 2s on a deer.

"I killed a doe with it about a month ago," Cavin said. "She was at 40 yards and the pellets went all the way through.

"Typically, when you kill a big game animal with a shotgun you're talking 00 buckshot, not No. 2s. It's changed the game, for sure."

I am going to play the interpretation game here to show how his statements may be 100% true and yet reflect something different. Looks like he shot 4 medium-sized and smaller hogs, the largest being less than 160 lbs by his guesstimate because he probably didn't actually measure any in the field, so the number may be inflated. Most were probably shot at very close range though he killed at 45 yards (again, probably guess distance, not actually measured).

Shots could have been head shots on the hogs, who knows? Nothing about the description tells use much on shot placement. Take the doe where the pellets passed completely through. If that is a neck shot, you are talking 2-5" of penetration is all, which is nothing remarkable.

There is the real possibility that he shot the sow and she went down, and then he managed to shoot 3 of her piglets as he walked up on her. This scenario would fit what he says, but if true, would totally change the context of what he said.

I have to wonder if he has only shot at game 5 times or that 5 times is the number of times he had DRT kills. He may have shot 10 times and had 5 more animals that ran off.

And who is this random hunter the news decided to interview? Is he just a happy Apex ammo customer? No. He may be a happy user, but may not even be a customer and he may be very biased because he profits from the sale of Apex Ammo. Danial Cavin of Vidalia, MS is a hunter and looking at his FB page, he doesn't just live and work in Mississippi as the article notes.

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.cavin.1

While it would appear that he does do a decent amount of hunting, it also indicates that he is directly involved in selling hunting gear and this ammunition in particular. He works for Sports Center, Inc. in Natchez, MS. Sports Center, Inc. is a small Mississippi chain of sporting goods stores that markets Apex Ammunition. In fact, he puts a lot of their ads on his personal FB page! Here is their website. You can search it and see that they sell the ammo...
https://soprogear.com/

The ammo may work okay. I don't know. What I do know is that there is no reason to believe anything in the article is 100% as it seems simply because there is an undisclosed for profit motive from the source of the high praise.

I really liked the closing statement from Cavin. This sounds like something you would hear from the sales counter...

"It's not the cheapest thing in the world, but for the average guy who hunts hogs maybe three times a year, what's $10 (per shot)," Cavin said.

The implication of this statement is huge, HUGE. If you are only hunting a very few times a year, you don't want to be wasting your money or normal buckshot that isn't likely to work for you. You need to spend the $10 a round to make sure you have the ammunition that will get the just done. After all, you don't hunt much so you can afford to the the exorbitant price.

[RMcL]

Double Naught Spy,

Context is important.

The Clarion Ledger article centered around a common dilemma, caused by the regulations facing hunters on state game management areas. The dilemma, using marginally effective arms and ammuntion or forgoing the opportunity to take any feral hogs.

Due to the unfortunate and ungrounded fear of off season deer poaching during small game seasons on Mississipi Game Management Areas, the MDWFP has limited wild hog hunters to rimfire firearms and shotguns using #2 shot or smaller.

In that context, using TSS #2 shot as a more effective option is indeed a "game changer" - abeit a more expensive one.

And your link shows that Soprogear also carries Federal Premium and Browning TSS ammunition lines.

[Double Naught Spy]

You keep using the term "game changer" like it means something and I like historical references as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but TSS #2 has been around for years, right? How is it now a game changer? The article in question is from March 2018. If TSS#2 from Apex is a "game changer" then the game has already changed and moved on, LOL.

The Clarion Ledger article isn't about Tungsten Shot. It is a Mississippi-based newspaper that is claiming this particular Mississippi brand's load is somehow superior to everything under the sun bolstered by an interview with a local Mississippi hunter, who just happens to work for a Mississippi company that profits from the sale of this particular product.

Yes, the sporting goods store for which the hunter works does sell other brands, but that wasn't what the article was about, was it? Did you notice any other brand mentioned in the article? Nope.

[RMcL]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

You keep using the term "game changer" like it means something and I like historical references as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but TSS #2 has been around for years, right? How is it now a game changer? The article in question is from March 2018. If TSS#2 from Apex is a "game changer" then the game has already changed and moved on, LOL.

The Clarion Ledger article isn't about Tungsten Shot. It is a Mississippi-based newspaper that is claiming this particular Mississippi brand's load is somehow superior to everything under the sun bolstered by an interview with a local Mississippi hunter, who just happens to work for a Mississippi company that profits from the sale of this particular product.

Yes, the sporting goods store for which the hunter works does sell other brands, but that wasn't what the article was about, was it? Did you notice any other brand mentioned in the article? Nope.

As I understand, Tungsten Super Shot has been around for several years, first solely as a handloading proposition. Later small specialty ammunition companies picked up the product and last to the playing field - at least for turkey hunting - came the bigger commercial names. As of now, larger TSS sizes remain the realm of handloaders and small specialty ammo producers.

In the context of taking hogs during small game seasons on WMA properties large TSS is a game changer - unless the regulations change to allow much larger conventional lead shot.

Would Federal Premium and Browning TSS do the same thing? The answer is no - until they begin offering TSS sizes suitable for predator and deer hunting.

TSS a game changer? Sure, before TSS I doubt anyone would have considered using #9 shot, let alone in a .410 bore, for turkey hunting.

https://www.federalpremium.com/shots...TSS419F+9.html

As always hunt with what you have confidence in - within game laws and area regulations.