A. writes : "I can't explain why really high birds are 

 so difficult, for I have no theory to account for the fad. 



"I should have thought that, clearly outlined agaln^ the 

 sky as they are, high birds ought to be easier than others, 



but they are certainly not so Of course an 



approaching high bird presents a convex target with the 

 feathers in the be^ position for residing penetration ; we 

 all know how difficult it is to break a bottle owing to its 

 convexity. Possibly the chief difficulty with the very high 

 bird is the necessity, for the above reasons, of getting him 

 in the centre of the shot pattern, a difficulty increased 

 by the natural tendency to stop the swing of the gun 

 as it approaches the vertical." 



[N.B. — With reference to the latter remark, D.'s tip 

 for an extra chuck of the gun. Is worth noting. — Ed.] 



B. writes : *' I do not believe there Is much, if any, 

 difference between the penetration of small shot fired 

 vertically or horizontally. We have tried shooting at tin 

 boxes hauled up to the top of a flagstaff 40 yards high, 

 and we were able to penetrate these with from 1 to 15 

 shot clean through. These must have killed any pheasant 

 provided it was hit In the head or neck. At anything like 

 this di^ance, a bird fired at from below and hit only in 

 the brea^, would not be killed clean because the shot had 

 to penetrate close fitting feathers, an inch or more of flesh, 

 and finally the brea^ bone before a vital spot is touched. 

 Hit in the usual spot ' behind,* the bird will carry on, 

 but it may die in the next beat. 



"In my opinion the reason why a 'straight over' high 

 pheasant is so difficult to kill is not because an experienced 

 gunner has not made sufficient allowance in front, but 



62 



