For this, my last post of the 00s, I had been trying for a while – and failing --  to think of an end-of-the-decade blog post. My “Eureka” moment came while cleaning up after cooking our Christmas goose. I heard the “tink” of metal falling into the kitchen sink. When I fished the misshapen pellet pictured above out of the sink I realized Hevi Shot is the most significant invention in shotgunning of the past 10 years.

There have been some excellent new guns introduced in the past decade, but most of them, no matter how good, are merely refinements on what came before.* By contrast, Hevi Shot changed the way we think about shotgun ammunition.

Hevi Shot wasn’t the first non-toxic pellet to try to improve on the performance of steel.  When it was introduced in 2000, however, it was the first pellet engineered to improve on the performance of lead. While its competitors were almost as dense as lead, Hevi Shot was denser (lead weighs 11.2 grams per cubic centimeter;  Hevi Shot weights 12 g/cc) giving it exceptional long range reach.

It was, as you can see here, comically deformed. Conventional shotgun wisdom held that the more perfect the sphere, the better the pattern. Hevi Shot looked like byproduct, not pellets, but it patterned more tightly than the best lead loads despite (some say because of) its mutant shape. Hevi Shot’s density  meant  could shoot smaller shot slower – with less recoil – and still outperform any steel load on the market. Or, you could drive big loads of Hevi Shot at high velocities and have the most lethal shotshells ever made for hunting. Hevi Shot’s tight patterns changed turkey hunting, too, making 40 yard guns into 50 yard guns (whether that is a change for the better or not is a different argument).
The invention of Hevi Shot prompted Remington, Federal and Winchester to develop their own similar HD, Heavyweight and Xtended Range pellets. Given the scarcity of raw tungsten, none of them are cheap and none ever will be, but all of them outperform any lead load ever made.

So, that is my nominee for most important shotgunning invention of the past decade. You may have your own ideas. Let’s hear them.

*as I am unfailingly reminded by loyal 1100 shooters whenever I write about a new semiautomatic shotgun.

The pellets you see here make up the content of a pre-production sample of Federal’s new Prairie Storm pheasant loads,  a lead version of their Black Cloud.  The normal looking shot is copper-plated 4s. They are mixed with “Flitestoppers,” which are also 4s but have rings around them that look like Saturn, or like WWI helmets. The white stuff is buffer, which helps the pellets keep their shape as they go down the barrel.

Both pellets and the buffer are loaded into ...

... the Flitecontrol wad, a solid shotcup that holds the pellets together for the first 15-20 feet out of the muzzle (rather than beginning to spread immediately upon leaving the muzzle as is the case with other types of shotcups), tightening patterns and increasing downrange velocity slightly.  The Flitestoppers are loaded first with the copper pellets on top. That way, the round pellets can draft for the less aerodynamic ridged pellets.

The Flitestoppers are nasty little things, at least, on the basis of the autopsies I performed on a couple of roosters I’ve been able to shoot with them. The ones I have dug out of the carcasses did indeed leave larger and more ragged wound channels than did the round 4s thanks to the ridges around the pellets. Contrary to my expectations, the ridges on the pellets I recovered survived passing through to the far side of the bird fairly intact.

Prairie Storm will be available at first in 4 shot, 1 1/4-ounce, 2 3/4-inch loads at 1500 fps.  They are unnecessarily fast, at least in my recoil-sensitive opinion (“Ringneck Rocket” was the other name the Federal marketing people considered), and I could certainly feel them going off in my lightweight Benelli Montefeltro. They wouldn’t be bad to shoot out of a gas gun, though. Besides, speed sells, the name is cool, and they seem to work. I suspect they will develop a cult following like the one that has grown up around the steel Black Cloud.

My standby pheasant poison will likely remain the milder-kicking yet deadly 1 1/4 ounces of 5 or 6 shot at 1330 fps, but I’m looking forward to shooting up my two sample boxes of Prairie Storm in the meantime and reporting back.

There's already been a  boatload of bloviation expressed on the recent reversal of the ban on loaded firearms in our national parks, some of it sensible but most of it (predictably) bordering on  hysterics.

This column from the Huffington Post is a perfect example:
 
"In fact,  the new rule is likely to make national park visitors less safe around  wildlife. Packing heat could give some people a false sense of security and  make them more likely to approach bison, elk, moose, and grizzly bears,  rather than keep a safe distance which is better for both people and  animals."

But the most certain outcome of this congressional action is  that it will promote poaching. The National Park Service warned in its fiscal 2006 budget submission each year for the past several years ... The data  suggests that there is a significant domestic as well as international trade  for illegally taken plant and animal parts." Poaching, the agency said, "is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife  and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks." 

Two points I'd like to make in response. First, poaching. When you make an argument it's generally a pretty good idea to make sure the data you use in defense of your argument actually support it. Apparently Mr. Markarian skipped that chapter in his high school debate class. There's absolutely no, none, nada, zip not a shred of evidence or data to support his assertion that allowing visitors firearms "promotes poaching." He, to be perfectly blunt, reached around his backside and pulled that statement out of his a**. And that National Park Service budget submission he quoted was published in...2006. Yes, three years ago. You know, back when packing in national parks was illegal.
 
Second, it's obvious the author has never visited a national park. If he had he would know that it's complete fantasy to believe that current (unarmed) visitors to our national parks  exhibit good judgment and keep a safe, prudent distance from roadside wildlife. Quite the opposite. Thanks to the constant anthropomorphization we're subjected to we now believe that wild animals have a deep, intrinsic  empathy toward humans. They would love us, if only we would put down our  guns and let them.

In fact, if one could make a sweeping generalization about the common sense of the average American tourist by observing their behavior around national park wildlife, one would have to reach the inevitable conclusion that we're already a nation of clueless,  pushy, overly-aggressive suburban jackasses. Guns certainly aren't going to change that. If you point out the obvious fact that wild animals have no interest in connecting with us on a spiritual level but if we intentionally harass them they will most  assuredly connect with us on a physical level, then you're simply an  unevolved lout who doesn't get it. See video below.

But I'm a pragmatist, and I think I've reached a compromise that will make everyone happy. Why don't we make loaded firearms illegal within say, 100 yards of any RV-accessible road but allow loaded  firearms in campsites and on all trails? This achieves two goals: it gives backcountry hikers and campers a measure of personal protection from  criminal and animal attack. It also gives park wildlife the freedom to (without the threat of being shot) continue stomping, goring, maiming and  otherwise communing with the hordes of camera-wielding Animal Planet watchers who choke our national park roads every summer.  

*Not a typo.

The previous post elicited so many interesting opinions that I was able to get a second post out of it. Herewith:

1. The message on the Badger muzzle brake and on the Claymore mine is “Front toward enemy,” not what I had. Once more my memory has done me dirt.

2. In theory, you could take the .30/06 in question hunting and never miss a shot with it—provided you kept your shots to 200 yards or less. Beyond that, stray shots really start to wander. I myself would not hunt with such a rifle because I have other guns that don’t throw shots. Why ask for trouble? It will find you without any help.

3. A number of you suggested a ruptured scope, or parallax, or loose rings or bases. In my experience, if a scope is defective, or the bases or rings are loose, you won’t get any kind of groups at all, or you’ll get 4-inch groups. As for parallax, the scope was an American model Zeiss 4.5X-14X with dial-a-dog parallax on the turret, so that was not the problem.

4. It’s pretty hard to throw a shot from a bench rest if you’re set up correctly. The last time I did it was November 2, 1981. I do throw shots from unsupported positions, and am man enough to admit it.

5. About 15 years ago, I got hold of a very nice Mauser-action .338 that would not shoot. I spent most of a summer trying to get it to group, and in the process spent $400 for a new barrel and $2,783.22 on 250-grain Nosler Partitions plus many pounds of different powders and primers. In the end, the god damn thing still would not shoot, and I swore never again. If I can’t get a gun cooking in a couple of weeks and with a minimum of expense, away it goes.

6. The story about Kenny Jarrett cutting receivers in half is true. He told me years ago that about twice every twelve months they would get a rifle that would not shoot no matter what--new barrel, new stock, load after load, new scope. He was never able to pin down exactly what the trouble was, but he didn’t want to screw around with a hopeless project any longer.