Shotgun pellets landing in yard.

[puppet]

Try dropping a handful of lead pellets onto your car from 100 feet.
If he had called the police then guns would have gone until they completed their enquiries. A few pellets examined and no other shooters about would have proved the culprits but it would not be an anonymous complaint as they would work it out. Having a licence means you have to be responsible, it is not a right.
Shooting pigeons towards properties with a following wind is simply stupid. Certainly not part of living in the countryside or a case of sticking up for fellow country folk to protect them from being responsible.

 

[jd6420s]

I didn't really want to go to the police on this. I just wanted the pellets to stop falling on my house. If they had compromised and put their backs to the town to ensure any pellets fell on their own land that would have been best surely? I would have thought any responsible shooter would have done this in any event.

 

[Highland Mule]

As my previous post, please show me the maths that proves a shot gun pellet falling vertically delivers a greater force than a hail stone of similar weight falling from a far greater height, bearing in mind that there will usually be a lot more hail stones than shot.

Pigeons are usually up in the air and I don't believe shotgun pellets can travel horizontally for 200 yards -- but I am ready to be proved wrong. What goes up will eventually begin to fall due to gravity, but that (and wind resistance) is the only force involved.

I would suggest that you did the wrong thing by seeking a confrontation. If there really was any danger, the correct procedure is to report it to the police who will have their own experts to work out the maths and decide what to do next. That course has the advantage that your complaint would also be anonymous.

Not taking sides in the discussion of what is appropriate or not with regards to shooting beyond one's boundary, but I'm afraid that the OP is correct in his suggestion that the shotgun pellets (steel, lead, whatever) would fall faster than hail. I refer you to Stokes law to confirm for yourself. Simply, shot is more dense than ice and for the same weight, a more dense sphere will be smaller, hence not being slowed by 'wind resistance' as much as lower density, larger particle.

 

[A1an]

Blimey, we seem to be getting all scientific on this one!

You did the right thing by approaching the lads yourself rather than causing a sh!t storm by calling plod.

If the lads are of a decent nature Im sure they'll be more careful next time.

 

[Pie face]

Blimey, we seem to be getting all scientific on this one!

You did the right thing by approaching the lads yourself rather than causing a sh!t storm by calling plod.

If the lads are of a decent nature Im sure they'll be more careful next time.

The Op approached the shooters direct
and got a negative response so not sure about them being of decent nature!

 

[A1an]

The Op approached the shooters direct
and got a negative response so not sure about them being of decent nature!

But how was HIS attitude, you've only heard one side of the story.

 

[Highland Mule]

But HOW was HIS attitude, you've only heard one side of the story.

I'd imagine he would have been pretty annoyed. I know I would have if someone had just shot me and was firing pellets at my children.

 

[A1an]

I'd imagine he would have been pretty annoyed. I know I would have if someone had just shot me and was firing pellets at my children.

Do you work in the media?

 

[Highland Mule]

Do you work in the media?

No

 

[bracken basher]

Not wishing to take sides but as the law currently stands -
"In both England and Wales it is an offence if, when shooting within 50ft of the centre of a highway, someone is injured or endangered. A highway is defined as any road on which the public has a right to drive a vehicle, but does not include bridleways, footpaths or cycle tracks."
Taken from- https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/answer...-footpath-you-can-legally-use-a-shotgun-20105

 

[Agriimark]

Invest in a tin hat [emoji23] jokes aside i do not agree with shooting towards built up area's but that said perhaps they thought they were far enough away to be safe. And as for their response to you well maybe you did not aproach and word your problem in a nice manor. I am not saying this is the case just a thought. Also if i felt that i was or my kids were in to close a proximity to a line of gun's i would simply go in the house or somewhere away from said problem. They were trying to do a good job whilst having some enjoyment in sport. Countrylife has enough problems with political sort's to be worried about this to be honest

 

[Jimbo88]

I am a shooter and personally I try to avoid shooting under 200yards of any properties with the shotgun if I have to drop down to 150yards it's always facing away from any properties. I will drop down to 50 yards with the air rifle but that's only because its a lot more accurate and pretty much silent.

It's just good etiquette and at the end of the day it's best to be safe than sorry

As to wind carrying the pellets you only have to look how much a slight wind can throw a 85gr round of a target so a pellet at 1/60th or so the weight with the wind behind it quite possible to travel a longer distance than thought...

On the other hand they are probably using number 6's which aren't all that big so if this was to hit you it would be very difficult to find and say for definet that it was a shotgun pellet.

 

[ajcc]

Not taking sides in the discussion of what is appropriate or not with regards to shooting beyond one's boundary, but I'm afraid that the OP is correct in his suggestion that the shotgun pellets (steel, lead, whatever) would fall faster than hail. I refer you to Stokes law to confirm for yourself. Simply, shot is more dense than ice and for the same weight, a more dense sphere will be smaller, hence not being slowed by 'wind resistance' as much as lower density, larger particle.

Not taking sides in the discussion of what is appropriate or not with regards to shooting beyond one's boundary, but I'm afraid that the OP is correct in his suggestion that the shotgun pellets (steel, lead, whatever) would fall faster than hail. I refer you to Stokes law to confirm for yourself. Simply, shot is more dense than ice and for the same weight, a more dense sphere will be smaller, hence not being slowed by 'wind resistance' as much as lower density, larger particle.

The wind was supposed to be an aggravating factor in that it was assisting the distance the pellets were travelling.....hail or rain droplets driven by the wind sting on exposed skin. A stray shot pellet doesn’t sting at 200 yards it’s too smaller mass and very little velocity.
I doubt the one day a year there was “a bit of pigeon shooting” on that field is likely to occur very often....especially now the shooters know, there’s a particular nearby resident who objects and got in a right paddy one summer.

 

[Pond digger]

I’ve banned the use of lead shot on our farm, because I’m concerned about the accumulative, poisonous nature of lead. That puts a different slant on this issue.

Unfortunately, given the average farm size, it’s virtually impossible to enjoy any kind of shooting activity without risking ‘trespass’ of shot: quite a conundrum.

 

[jd6420s]

People are always going to be funny about being shot at even if there is a low risk of serious injury. The shooters this time probably didn't appreciate that the pellets could travel that far but to deny it happened and call me a liar when I was hit by one of the pellets was wrong.
It is quite worrying that there are several people on here who don't try and regulate themselves and minimise trespass of shot onto other peoples land. Their attitude seems to be "I don't see what the problem is". Take my word for it that being hit by a lead pellet hurts more than a hail stone.
It is surely better to regulate yourselves if you can and reduce any incidents happening, otherwise at some point the government will impose their own restrictions and you probably won't like them.

 

[Highland Mule]

They may not hurt “much”, but I know a guy who has one embedded under his skin, from a ricochet. No pain, but he’s told he can never have an MRI if he needs one.

 

[milkloss]

They may not hurt “much”, but I know a guy who has one embedded under his skin, from a ricochet. No pain, but he’s told he can never have an MRI if he needs one.

Sounds like the kind of guy that wouldn’t have one if his life depended on it anyway! Nowt queer as folk but I’d have it out either myself or by someone qualified.

 

[Dry Rot]

People are always going to be funny about being shot at even if there is a low risk of serious injury. The shooters this time probably didn't appreciate that the pellets could travel that far but to deny it happened and call me a liar when I was hit by one of the pellets was wrong.
It is quite worrying that there are several people on here who don't try and regulate themselves and minimise trespass of shot onto other peoples land. Their attitude seems to be "I don't see what the problem is". Take my word for it that being hit by a lead pellet hurts more than a hail stone.
It is surely better to regulate yourselves if you can and reduce any incidents happening, otherwise at some point the government will impose their own restrictions and you probably won't like them.

You've missed the point.

First of all, I think the hackles of most normal people will go up when they are aggressively confronted by a trespasser, which is what you were, when they are doing something on their own land that they have always done and believe to be perfectly reasonable and lawful. These days there are a lot of animal rights activists around who will object to the slightest thing. Should we really capitulate to their demands without question?

Secondly, to reach 200 yards, a shotgun pellet would need to be fired at 45 degrees or more. At the limit of that range it would be descending near vertically. I know exactly how much a lead pellet hurts when fired horizontally as I have been shot several times when running a sporting agency but I am still alive and none drew blood.

If the dangers were as you seem to suggest, there would be an awful lot of dead bodies around after a driven shoot because most of the shots will be fired near vertically -- and what goes up, must come down.

I called the police out twice when my dear sweet neighbour's teenage son was staging one of his impromptu clay pigeons shoots (on his six acres bounded by two roads and just over the fence from my heavily pregnant mares). Both times plod stated he was doing nothing wrong and my neighbour continued to tell me that "It's my land and I'll do what I want on it". The shoots continued. Finally, after ponies had gone through two fences, he got a solicitor's letter and the nonsense stopped. But the police were of no help whatsoever.

Perhaps the "public" meeds educating? A lead pellet falling due to the force of gravity alone is not a problem, but the imagination of some will very quickly make it one, given half a chance.

 

[Pie face]

People are always going to be funny about being shot at even if there is a low risk of serious injury. The shooters this time probably didn't appreciate that the pellets could travel that far but to deny it happened and call me a liar when I was hit by one of the pellets was wrong.
It is quite worrying that there are several people on here who don't try and regulate themselves and minimise trespass of shot onto other peoples land. Their attitude seems to be "I don't see what the problem is". Take my word for it that being hit by a lead pellet hurts more than a hail stone.
It is surely better to regulate yourselves if you can and reduce any incidents happening, otherwise at some point the government will impose their own restrictions and you probably won't like them.

Completely agree and it's clear that views are polarised on this into two group, those types who don't see a problem in firing towards people and property because in there views there's only a small risk that some one may get hit if they do "well its only a bit of lead shot init" and those that think its completely unacceptable to fire anything into neighbouring property under any circumstances. I consider myself a responsible shooter and I don't want to be associated with people in the former group who are a threat to the sport.

 

[Highland Mule]

Sounds like the kind of guy that wouldn’t have one if his life depended on it anyway! Nowt queer as folk but I’d have it out either myself or by someone qualified.

It’s quite close to his eye, and causing no harm. On the balance of risk, he’s probably made the right decision, IMHO.