American wild-fowl shooting : describing the haunts, habits, and methods of shooting wild fowl, particularly those of the western states of America : with instuctions concerning guns, blinds, boats, and decoys; the training of water-retrievers, etc.

Front matter

Cornell University Library bani

American wild-fowl ti)

Cornell University

Introduction

In the following work 1 have endeavored to lay before the public, in as concise a form as possible, full and trustworthy explanations of the various practical methods of hunting wild fowl as followed in the inland portions of our country. No book that I am yet aware of, published in this country, has been devoted exclusively to the subject; though a few short, fragmentary articles, giving a general idea of the sport, are to be found in the many volumes of our sporting literature.

Wild-fowling as an art is but very little understood by the great majority of sportsmen. It is attended with too much fatigue and too many hardships to be followed by them as it should be in all weathers, in order to become thoroughly familiar with it. And even in the warmer months, nearly all of our richer and better-educated sportsmen, instead of making use of their own reasoning powers to find and secure their game, depend on hiring others more experienced and willing to work, and do not question the whys and wherefores of their movements, or those of the game. They are content simply to shoot -when opportunities present themselves. The man who is hired does not consider it his particular duty to explain the various habits of the birds, nor the proper manner of taking advantage of a knowledge of them. Amongst professional hunters, for various reasons, thoughts of book-making are seldom entertained; and though there are many excellent writers, both amateur and professional, who understand it much better than myself, and are much better able to do it justice, the subject—one of unusual interest to American sportsmen—has been almost entirely neglected. Such being the case, it is hot without a well-grounded hope that, in the absence of such a work as might be, my labors may not prove altogether useless.

The ornithological descriptions, by referring to which the novice may determine the specific characteristics of his game, I have borrowed from Audubon’s “Biographical Ornithology”; farther than this 1 have abstained from copying from other authors, and contented myself with writing only that which 1 have learned and proved by experience. 1 have aimed to instruct rather than to amuse, leaving it to others more capable to discourse upon the poetry and romance of the sport, and retaining only the less enticing but more profitable philosophy and reason; and, as I am not accustomed to literary pursuits, I trust that anything I may have written that appears egotistical or self-assuming may be ascribed by my generous critics, sportsmen, to a visibly poor acquaintance with the graces of rhetoric and style.

Before treating of the various methods to be employed in the pursuit of wild fowl, 1 shall first proceed to separate them into two distinct classes, which I shall term respectively the deep-water and shoal-water varieties, taking the Canvas-back as the type of the one, and the Mallard of the other. The habits of the two varieties vary so greatly that many rules which may be employed successfully in the pursuit of the one, it will be readily seen, might not be applicable to the killing of the other.

The shoal-water varieties simply immerse the head and neck, but seldom or never entirely submerge the body when feeding, though having the power of doing so and swimming under water quite long distances when wounded and pursued. Their food, then, of course, must be different and their natural haunts separate from those of the deep-water varieties, which, as their name indicates, dive for their food. The bodies of the deep-water varieties are proportionally broader, both as compared with their length and depth; the legs set farther back, and the wings proportionally shorter than those of the other class; the tail feathers shorter, more stiff, and less inclined to “cock up,” being naturally held horizontally or slightly drooping ; the plumage is generally shorter, but the feathers are more close and densely filled with down ; and as a rule they will be found more tenacious of life than the shoal-water ducks. In the deep-water varieties, with the canvas-back I shall treat of the red-head, blue-bill or broad-bill, tufted duck, and buffle-head or butter-ball.

In the shoal-water class are the mallard, sprigtail or pintail, blue and green winged teal, wood or summer duck, gadwall or gray duck, widgeon, shoveller, and dusky or black duck (the lastnamed, though not properly a Western duck, being sometimes found associated with the mallard). To the shoal-water variety, with the ducks belong the wild goose and the swan, whose habits, with the manner of hunting them, I shall also consider.

It will be noticed by those conversant with Western wild-fowling that two or three species of ducks, with the mergansers found on Western waters, have been omitted in the above classification. These 1 have considered it a great waste of time and space to describe, as they are rarely pursued for sport, and are of such rank and fishy flavor as to be totally unfit for the table.

Though several ornithologists have made this same division of the duck family, as may ‘be seen by referring to their scientific nomenclature, they have, however, denominated their subfamilies Fuliguline, or sea-ducks, and Anatine, freshwater ducks; and in view of the fact that I am treating solely of inland wild-fowling, and yet find both classes in nearly equal abundance, I have deemed it more appropriate to their habits and general characteristics to classify them as I have at first done. I have dwelt at greatest length upon the pursuit of the mallard and canvas-back, as it is to the capture of these two varieties, representative types of the two classes, that the labors of sportsmen are chiefly directed. Many of the methods therein described will be found applicable to the taking of the other varieties; but where the different habits of the other varieties occasion different plans of operation, they are elsewhere duly and explicitly explained.

The various concurrent subjects of guns, boats, decoys, etc, have been briefly yet comprehengively discussed under their proper headings.

Chapter I. Guns

1 suppose I must say a few words as to the comparative merits of breech and muzzle loaders ; for, to my mind, notwithstanding I am willing to acknowledge the general superiority of the new invention, the muzzle-loader possesses several decided advantages which entitle it to merit, and, in certain cases, to preference in selecting the most suitable weapon.

The chief superiority of the breech-loader lies in its capability of being so quickly reloaded when in the field or boat, and this alone is a sufficient advantage to compensate for many otherwise serious objections; for, no matter how smart aman may be with a muzzle-loader, he will often lose many opportunities of shooting, through not being ready loaded, while to the patron of the breech-loader such occurrences are very rare, provided he has plenty of loaded cartridges handy. This one requirement, however, being often wanting, the advantage is not so conclusive. The providing or reloading of a sufficient number of metallic shells, or the transportation and room required for their paper substitutes, is the most serious drawback in their use; and here it is that the claim of the muzzle-loader is especially noticeable. This conclusion was not formed hastily, but was brought to my mind very forcibly, though rather unwillingly, and most frequently whilst sitting up at night loading shells and listening to the snoring of my fellow-hunters, votaries of the muzzle-loader, who, having eaten their supper, washed their guns, and refilled their pouches and flasks, had rolled up in their blankets to “woo tired nature’s sweet restorer.”

On pleasant days, when shooting from my boat, 1 usually made a practice of reloading as fast as possible between shots, carrying an ammunition-box and loading-tools with me for that purpose; but this, for obvious reasons, I could not well do on very stormy days or when shooting away from my boat, and, consequently, I had to refill my shells at night—often when I should be sleeping—or else forego my morning shooting next day.

Frequently in spring continuous shooting may be

GUNS. 21 had at “travellers,” as they are termed by the hunters—i.e., ducks making long flights, often migrating, flying high in the air, offering few shots under fifty yards and more over sixty. This kind of shooting requires a good gun and heavy loading, lots of powder, and large shot if procurable—so much powder, five to six drachms, that it would be folly to make a practice of using so large an amount in ordinary sport; consequently, the shells being usually loaded with common charges, this sport must be given up, or the shells emptied and reloaded more heavily, a tedious job when ducks are flying thickly. With a muzzle-loader all one needs to do is to raise his charges a notch or two, and he is ready to kill his farthest. Again, on the other hand, very close shooting may often be had when available ammunition is not very plentiful. It is then, of course, desirable to lessen our charges as much as possible, in order to receive the greatest benefit from our opportunities. And here, again, the muzzle-loader has the preference.

To be brief, a man risks fewer long, wild shots with a muzzle-loader, and consequently wastes less ammunition, has less extra bulk and weight to carry, as shells, loading-tools, etc.; and in boat-shooting, if he uses ¢wo muzzle-loaders, can, | think, kill more game the season through than with one breech-loader, as he will frequently have opportunities to shoot both guns into the same flock of ducks before they get out of reach. 1 shall describe hereafter a method for loading a muzzleloader in which the operation is greatly shortened, and much valuable time saved.

Now, because of my saying a few words in favor of the muzzle-loader, do not consider me an old fogy, or old-fashioned either. I have not finished yet. I intend to give the claims of the breech-loader an equal showing, and, I think, can still find advantages enough to overcome most of its deficiencies. And first (I will be brief as possible), they have the advantage of rapidity in loading, whereby in wild-fowl shooting, besides the advantage of always being ready for new-comers, cripples may be the more readily secured.. Second, ease and quickness of exchanging loads in a gun, as in the case of the approach of geese or swan when awaiting ducks. Third, facility of cleaning. Fourth, less liability to miss fire. Fifth, safety, no getting two loads into one barrel, no need of having head or hands over the muzzle,

GuNS. 23 or leaving gun loaded when not in use or when riding in a wagon or. other vehicle.

Now, to sum it all up: In my opinion, for the majority of uses, the breech-loader is the superior weapon for the novice or the gentleman sportsman. For the poor market duck-hunter, if he can afford but one gun, I would advocate the muzzle-loader; he will find it much less trouble to take care of, and less work to keep loaded; he may kill a few more ducks with a breech-loader, but they will cost him enough more to make up the difference both in labor and ammunition. For boat-shooting, I would advise, where it can be afforded, the use of both guns, when either may be used as occasion demands, and the special advantages of each be secured.

We will suppose our reader to have made up his mind as to which class of guns suits him best—breech or muzzle loader. And, next as to dimensions, etc. For flight-shooting, an 8-bore is as large as is advantageous, and a 10 is sufficiently small. For a breech-loader, I should never use larger than a 10, as the cartridges for an 8 are too bulky and require too much room for transportation, and the 10, if properly loaded, will. kill nearly if not quite as far. For a muzzleloader, a slight increase in the gauge will admit of larger charges being used for flock-shooting, while the objections in the case of the breech-loader do not occur. Their weights in proportion to their gauges should be as follows:

For a 10-bore, 9 to 104 Ibs.; 9-bore, 104 to 12 lbs.; 8-bore, 12 to 14 Ibs. The barrels should never be under 30 inches in length, while anything over 35—and that only for an 8-bore—is superfluous, and only waste and useless metal to carry. Damascus is, I think, the best material, on account both of its beauty and superior strength. Laminated steel, if properly made, is about as good, but so many cheap and almost worthless imitations are in the market that it cannot be relied upon. Damascus cannot be cheaply counterfeited, and therefore is more to be depended on. Select barrels, if possible, having nearly a true taper from breech to muzzle. The rib should be about 4 to § inch wide, slightly concave laterally, but perfectly straight lengthwise, and sufficiently elevated at breech to prevent under-shooting. Sight-piece small and close to the muzzle.

So many different principles and methods are employed for breech-loading actions that a full consideration of their merits and defects will be

GUNS. 25 impossible here. To my own mind, the best and most desirable is the under-lever double-grip, on account of both its great simplicity and durability, though many of the first-class snap actions work very freely and wear quite well; in fact, for ordinary use are sufficiently durable; but for rough, every-day work, nothing, in my opinion, equals the double-grip. 1 have fired one over twelve thousand shots, and though never in the hands of a gunmaker to be repaired, it is now appareutly as tight as when new: “Greener,” the celebrated English gun manufacturer, in his book on “ Modern Breech-loaders,” says: “The double-grip is considered by all practical gun-makers to be the strongest and most durable arrangement for sporting guns and rifles. Nothing can be more simple or do the work better. There being a great amount of leverage, it possesses wonderful binding power, and when properly made and well fitted it will last many years without becoming loose, as it can be made selftightening to allow for wear and tear. It is getting more into favor every season amongst the sportsmen at home and in India. When guns and rifles constructed on the double-grip plan have failed, it is attributable to the imperfect mode of making the action. We have seen long, heavy double rifles of 8-bore, fitted to a light breech action with bar-locks, and the metal cut away just where it was most required, being left barely strong enough for a light shot-gun.”

The break-off in the breech-loader should not be less than three-fourths inch in thickness, and the strap long and fastened to the stock by two screws. The locks, as quoted from Greener, should be backactioned, thereby leaving the action stronger, and should have a fine oily feel, and give forth a sharp, clear click on cocking. (For a muzzle-loader I should prefer forward-action locks, as they are more pleasing to the eye, and do not weaken the gun any more than the old style, if as much, They should be independent, as they are less liable to get wet inside.) The mainspring should be rather stiffer than is usual in muzzle-loaders, and the hammers should have a good sweep, as some breech-loading caps require a strong blow to ex. plode them. Rebounding locks are rather a detriment than an advantage. They are more liable to get out of repair than the common lock, cannot (from principles of construction) be made to strike a blow sufficiently heavy to always insure exploding the cap or primer; and from the

GUNS. Q7 sudden jerk upon the mainspring are liable to be broken in very cold weather. Another very serious objection, which I have seen occur myself, is that the cap may be driven back into the needleholes by the force of the explosion, the hammers not holding the strikers up to them, and the working of the gun thereby for a time prevented. If the strikers are sufficiently long, however, to fill the hole completely, this objection cannot occur.

The stock should be of English or German walnut, with a strong, thick wrist, and the grain and fibre of the wood running with the angle of bend. A pistol-grip is thought by some to be an advantage. The stock should be varnished and _polished. - An oiled stock does not stand water well: when wet the fibre of the wood is raised, the wood is swelled, and on drying shrinks from the metal work, leaving the joints open.

The trimmings should be of case-hardened iron, with little or no engraving.

To determine the length and bend of stock required in ordering a gun, the best way is to procure a gun, if possible, which seems to “come up” to suit you, then lay a straight-edge along the top rib sufficiently long to extend to the butt-plate, and measure the distance from the underside of the straight-edge to the stock, both at the top of the rise from the wrist, or the nose, as it is called, and at the butt-plate; this will give the bend. From the right trigger to centre of leel-plate is the length of stock required. About three inches is found to be the ordinary bend, and fourteen to fourteen and one-half inches the usual length of stock required.

As to the shooting powers of the gun when properly loaded, they are dependent mainly upon the form of bore, in connection with the elasticity of the material of which the barrels are composed. It is a very foolish idea, though one, I am sorry to say, quite prevalent among sportsmen, to suppose, because some one gun is found to do very strong and close shooting, that all others made by the same maker will do equally or nearly as well. This is a very unreasonable presumption, especially in the judging of those gunmakers who manufacture to order. Their customers generally order their guns made to shoot as their use requires. One who may not be overparticular in aiming, or who desires a gun solely for wood or brush shooting, and where he seldom has to shoot far, will, perhaps, order the gun made to shoot open. Another, who may shoot nothing

GUNS. 29 but ducks, may require his to shoot very close. It is obvious neither alone could be taken as a fair sample of the gunmaker’s abilities.

As to factory guns in general, they are meant to be made to shoot passably before leaving the shop, and, where they fail to equal the ideal of the purchaser, the dealer usually rebores them to shoot as desired. Thus, again, as many guns are rebored after leaving their makers, their good or bad shooting qualities cannot with justice be ascribed to them. Sportsmen’s ideas, too, differ in regard to shooting so frequently, that what one might call an extra shooting gun, another would consider as only ordinary. Nearly all our first-class gunmakers understand boring fully, as an essential part of their business; so in ordering a gun, if the sportsman will specify how he wants the gun to shoot, he will nearly always be suited, if his demands are at all reasonable.

Before I go further, let me explode another foolish notion entertained by many of the thoughtless ones. Because game may be killed with more certainty at short distances with small shot than with too large a size, or because they may sometimes happen to kill an extra long shot ‘when using them, they have concluded that small shot will kill farther. Now, on asking their reasons for this belief, several have told me—and, indeed, one late author has published the same theory—that a small shot striking a bird, say through the lungs or stomach, makes but a small hole, which closes after the passage of the shot, thus preventing the escape of blood, and causing the bird to die quickly from internal hemorrhage; whereas a larger shot striking in the same place leaves an open hole, through which the blood runs freely, and the bird flies on frequently out of sight, or until it dies from sheer loss of blood.

My own idea is that fully nine-tenths of the game that dies solely from loss of blood or internal hemorrhage is never recovered by the sportsman; and though I admit they die more quickly when bleeding internally than if the blood flows outwardly, yet from the wound made by the larger shot, as more of the veins or minute blood-vessels are severed, more blood would escape, and the choking from internal hemorrhage would ensue full as quickly though a portion of the blood should pass through to the outside.

It is by the severe shock or paralysis of the nervous system more often than otherwise that death from gunshot wounds is produced, and this

GUNS. 31 alone is the almost invariable cause of instant death in such cases. Assuming this to be the fact (and I think but few of my thinking readers will hesitate to do so, being supported in the opinion by the testimony of our most skilful surgeons), it follows that our object should be to create a shock sufficiently severe to always insure death if possible. It is well known that a comparatively slight blow in a vital point, as certain parts of the head, neck, or the immediate region of the heart, will produce a shock sufficient to cause death. A very heavy blow, or the united shock of a number of lighter blows, taking effect in less vulnerable parts, may be sufficient to accomplish our purpose. So _ long as we insure striking a vital place, it is obvious the larger the shot we can use the better, as, their momentum being greater, and their individual striking surfaces larger, they must consequently have greater bone-smashing and nervedestroying effects, and produce greater shocks. Once in a while, though once too often, a stickler for small shot will assert as an argument in their favor that small shot will penetrate deeper than large ones, as their surface to be resisted is so much smaller.

But, without arguing the point, let the sceptic put it to practical test, and if he finds in shooting at the same target of pine-wood, all other things being equal, that he can get deeper penetration with No. 6 shot than he can with No. 1, my faith in the certainty of things in this life will be sadly shaken.

Having wisely chosen our shot, our desire should certainly be to give as great a force to those shot as is compatible with safety, comtort of shooting, and sufficient closeness and regularity in their dispersion; for an excess of powder over the proper charge will cause the shot to scatter widely. The proper amount of powder, as well as the size and proportionate quantities of shot, we can determine only by experiment. As to the amount of each suitable for duck-shooting, from my own experience and observatioh of the charges used by the most successful duck-hunters of my acquaintance, 1 find the best propor- ‘tions to be:

For a 10-gauge, 4 to 5} drachms powder, 1 to 14 ounces shot.

For a 9-gauge, 44 to 6 drachms powder, 1 to 13 ounces shot.

GUNS. 33

For an 8-gauge, 5 to 7 drachms powder, I} to 14 ounces shot.

These charges are amply sufficient for single ducks, and will kill as far as heavier ones if the game be fairly held on. For flock-shooting or a poor marksman, more shot may be added with advantage, as giving more striking surface; and in using larger shot than No. 4, one-quarter ounce should be added to each of the foregoing charges, on account of the fewer number of pellets contained in the ounce. As good a way as any to determine the best size of shot to be used for game is to shoot at a target the actual size of the game it is intended for, and at any distance where you can be tolerably certain of striking the target, with four or five pellets, and sufficient force and penetration (which is the main point), you may be sure you will be able to secure your bird if fairly held on.

For duck-shooting with a breech-loader I would recommend the use of metallic shells. I am satisfied they shoot stronger. Paper shells are very liable to get wet and thereby spoiled, besides requiring so much room if a large amount of shooting is expected. Their extra cost, too, though an insignificant item in the minds of some, is not to be overlooked by the poorer sportsman.

I have seen an objection made to the metallic shell in the columns of the Turf, Field, and Farm, \ believe, by a paper-shell man, to the effect that they were dangerous to use. In support of this he goes on to say that, having had one miss fire, he put the shell into a vise, and was punching a hole in the cap for the purpose of prying it off with an awl, when it exploded, and he narrowly escaped serious injury. This reminds me very much of the boy who, to discover .whether his gun was loaded or not, commenced to blow in the muzzle. Seeing the hammer was down, and thinking perhaps that prevented the air from escaping, he endeavored to cock the gun with his toe, which slipped, but not until he had raised the hammer sufficiently, however, to convince him undeniably that the gun was loaded. Had he been permitted to live a few moments longer, he perhaps might have been led to remark, in the simplicity of his spirit, that “loaded guns were dangerous.”

I have known two cases of shells being exploded accidentally—one a paper, the other a metallic shell—both in capping after the shells

GUNS. 35 were filled. The paper shell burst, splitting the holder’s thumb open, and depriving him of the use of his hand for several days. The metallic shell did no serious harm whatever, not bursting, delivering its charge rather forcibly, but luckily not towards any one. By capping the shells before filling, which should aleays be done, all positive danger from accidental explosion is avoided.

The “Sturtevant” shell I like best for the following reasons: First, the loading apparatus is reduced to a minimum. From its construction, the anvil and ejector remaining in the shell, the extra tool for punching off caps needed with all other shells is dispensed with, the rod for pushing down the wads answering the purpose. Second, they are less liable to miss fire. Third, the cost of caps, which are the same as used in the paper shells, is less than any others, excepting common muzzle-loading, and, in cases of emergency, G. D’s may be used. Fourth, with proper care they are more durable than any other shell.

Wads (Eley’s are the very best ones) two sizes larger than the bore of the shell should be used to prevent the displacement of the shot in one barrel by the. discharge of the other, as frequently happens if wads of too small a size are used. Repeated firing, however, will loosen most any wad; so the sportsman if in the habit of firing one barrel more than the other should, after firing that barrel two or three times in succession, change the loaded shell remaining in the gun to that barrel, and put the fresh one in its place. Some sportsmen of my acquaintance use wads three or four (and one five) sizes larger than their guns; but this I consider decidedly going to extremes. Where one of so large a size is used it crimples, and holds even less than a smaller one. If the wads are at all thin, two should be used over the powder. One alone is apt to be blown to pieces in the barrel, causing the gun to shoot badly.

More breech-loaders get shaky in the action by being worked carelessly than from repeated firing, and when buying a gun the purchaser is seldom taught the proper method of using it, so I will attempt to describe it here. The barrels should never be allowed to drop down suddenly, bringing up with a sudden jerk, as is the favorite way with the snap advocates; neither should they be thrown back into position with a snap; that must wear the hinge excessively. But, on taking the

GUNS. 37 gun down from the shoulder after firing, drop the stock inside the elbow, and hold it firmly against the body with the upper arm; then, grasping the barrels tightly with the left hand a few inches in front of the hinge, unfasten the lever with the right, and lower the barrels down easily. Use either hand to withdraw and insert the shells, -holding the gun in position with the other. The gun should then be closed in the same careful manner. The whole operation, so long on paper, can thus be performed as quickly as in any other way, if not quicker.

In loading a muzzle-loader, study to make as few motions as possible, and those short and direct. If shooting from a boat, have a large, straight rod nearly the size of the bore, with which you may push the wads down as quick as -you please. A quick-loading flask, 7.2, one having a large feed-hole to the charger, should also be used.

It is often desirable, where ducks are flyihg in spurts, or cripples are to be secured, to load as fast as possible. In order to do this, the shooter should provide himself with a few thin metallic tubes (tin is good), about an inch and a half in length, with an inside diameter equal to the bore of the gun. Then, first placing them on a level surface, he is to .push a wad into each as far as the bottom, and, after cutting in the proper loads of shot, is to secure each firmly with another wad. Then, when in a hurry to load, all he needs to do, after dropping his powder into the barrel, is to place one of these tubes over the muzzle (guides should be soldered to the outside of the tubes to insure their being in the right position), and with his rod push the contents down at once, when capping finishes the operation. The tubes may be refilled during the intervals between shots.