January, 1922 
logue. These people are perhaps the 
oldest makers of small-bore guns in 
America, and they are masters of the 
art. It will be noted that the 20-bore 
load of 234 X which is so immensely 
popular just now, gives a pressure of 
5.65 tons against only 5.10 for the 2 x ^ 
in the 28 bore. The above-mentioned 
20-gauge load is plenty heavy for a 16 
bore. So, if safety alone were to be 
considered, I should say by all means 
never use anything smaller than a No. 
12 gun, because by so doing the danger 
from bursted barrels is reduced to the 
lowest degree consistent with a reasonably 
wieldy and practical weapon. The reader 
will readily understand this when I state 
that a dram and 1%. ounce load 
registers only 4.42 tons on the pressure 
gun, while a velocity of .959 feet seconds 
on the chronograph is developed. The 
greatest trouble has been caused by try- 
ing to get 12-bore results from guns of 
many times smaller size, and the ten- 
dency has been toward overloading. 
When a shooter first handles a small- 
bore gun he is struck at once with its 
trim and graceful outline as well as the 
light weight. In other words, he is en- 
amored — smitten — with it and is never 
satisfied ’till he owns one. Then he 
goes bravely to work and tries to stuff 
a 12 or 16-bore load into it — if it be a 
20 or 28 — with the result that he is 
still dissatisfied. I know of one shooter 
who has a 20 bore that weighs 7 pounds 
and is chambered for a 3-inch shell. Still 
another has a 28 bore that weighs 7 
pounds and has 28-inch barrels. Both 
men are well-known local shooters. The 
latter has his shells loaded to order with 
2J4 drams of “E. C.” powder and ^-ounce 
shot — generally No. 9. I thought to fol- 
low his example with a lighter gun, with 
high-grade barrels, but was advised 
against it by Parker Bros., who said I 
would be overloading. Still another 
well-known shooter uses a “D. T. V. E.” 
grade Parker in 28 bore and has had it 
made to weigh 6 pounds 10 ounces. This 
would be a heavy 16 bore and would be 
heavy enough for a light 12 bore. 
Where do they get the idea, anyway? 
Why don’t they shoot 20 or 28-bore 
guns and be done with it — or else shoot 
12 bore and shut up about it. A 5- 
pound 10-ounce gun of 28 bore, made 
with high-grade steel barrels, will stand 
a charge of 2 drams Du Pont or 2% 
drams of “E. C.” and ^-ounce chilled 
shot in 2%-inch shells, and give perfect 
results. This in a 30-inch gun which is 
long enough for any purpose. One of 
these bored to concentrate nearly all the 
shot on a 30-inch ring at 35 yards is a 
real killer. This can be done, for I have 
a 20 that will do it at 40 yards — placing 
as high as 291 on the circle with 2J4 
drams “E. C.” and %-ounce No. 8 chilled 
common factory loads in 2^ - inch 
“Leader” cases. It does this so often 
that it may truly be called a “habit” with 
the little gun. Needless to say, it is very 
easy to miss wfith a gun that cuts so 
narrow a “swath” as this, and it was a 
long time before I learned to shoot it 
satisfactorily or to hit with it with any 
degree of regularity. When I did, how- 
ever, my work with it measured well up 
FOREST AND STREAM 
toward my previous performances with 
the 12 bore. The argument is made 
that the small bores concentrate the bulk 
of the charge toward the center of the 
pattern, leaving the “fringe” of the load 
open and ragged. This is true of all 
full-choked guns of whatever caliber. 
It is doubtful if the small gauges have 
it much worse than the large. My own 
small-bore guns all shot with remarkable 
evenness and regularity of pattern, with 
both light and heavy loads, and I have 
owned and shot several different makes, 
both 20 and 28 bores. I do not claim 
that as much game can be killed with 
them with a given number of shots as 
with larger bores, but this of itself 
should be a powerful argument in their 
favor, as wild game is being extermi- 
nated to such an alarming extent that 
the season will soon have to be closed 
entirely on all the different varieties or 
they will find their berth with that of the 
A good combination 
wild pigeon and the great awk, and the 
birds will have given way to the en- 
croachment of hateful vermin and no.x- 
ious seeds, or, as one writer has aptly 
expressed it, “Man the killer will find 
the game covers tenantless, and the fields 
and forests will resound to no music save 
the drone of the insect, which in ever- 
increasing phalarrx is marshalling on to 
his (man’s) undoing.” 
Len Whittemore, California. 
HAWKS AND WOODCOCK 
Dear Forest and Stream : 
A S there has been some discussion in 
your magazine lately on woodcock 
and hawks, I want to add my observa- 
tions on the subject. Hawks certainly do 
eat woodcock. I have seen remnants of 
woodcocks on bogs and in covers, al- 
ways near stumps of trees or knolls on 
bogs, which are the surest signs that the 
deed was done by hawks. I once hit a 
woodcock while hunting in a bog. It 
went about a hundred yards and then 
towered. A sparrow hawk, apparently 
from nowhere, seized it and carried it be- 
yond a belt of trees. After a long search 
1 flushed the hawk and shot it, and later 
found the woodcock with breast so badly 
torn up that it had to be thrown away. 
27 
Here in Ireland woodcock resort to 
bogs at night for food. Owls are the 
worst enemies then, as they quarter the 
bogs with the patience and precision of 
an old setter. Happily, owls are few and 
far between now, and hawks are very 
conspicuous by their absence. 
Ptarmigan, Ireland. 
THE ENGLISH SPARROW 
Dear Forest and Stream ; 
I HAVE for several years devoted much 
^ of my time to the study of birds and 
have well acquainted myself with the lit- 
erature of government writers and offi- 
cials pertaining to the habits of the Eng- 
lish sparrow, but it was not until I de- 
cided to make personal investigation that 
I have acquired a clear view of the de- 
structive habits of this bird. 
As he is so common and has the habit 
of nesting in the eaves of houses, he is 
usually overlooked by the bird student, 
who would rather devote his attention to 
the other birds which are more interest- 
ing and which are more closely attached 
to natural conditions. I did not have to 
go far for this purpose, as my vicinity 
contains many trees very attractive to 
birds. 
Previous to the summer of 1921 I had 
never to any extent employed any means 
that would have tended to discourage the 
presence of the sparrows in this vicinity, 
and you may rest assured this was from 
pure ignorance of the bird’s life history. 
In the latter part of the month of June 
a pair of cedar-waxwings constructed a 
nest in one of the oak trees. For several 
days they seemed to be doing well and 
were evidently contented with their new 
home duties. The eggs were laid and in- 
cubation commenced and continued until 
the sparrows discovered the nest. They 
gathered in flocks and fluttered about the 
nest in a most annoying manner. Their 
threats were growing bolder day by day 
until it seemed impossible for the wa.x- 
wings to remain any longer, so they left 
the nest and place, never to return. 
I tried in vain to chase away the spar- 
rows. I shot several, but this did not 
answer, because when I returned to the 
nest there always were some left to con- 
tinue their ravagous work. 
A short time afterward, on leaving the 
house, I noted a red squirrel running up 
and down the trees in a very excited 
state. It seemed odd at the moment, but 
upon closer inspection I noticed several 
sparrows scolding severely at him, and 
they were even so bold as to almost cause 
him bodily harm. Of course the sparrow 
is no match for a red squirrel, but it 
clearly indicated with what boldness a 
.sparrow will force a fight against an ad- 
versary. The reader may be left to im- 
agine why our songbirds cannot with- 
stand the terribleness of its attacks. 
Since then I have spent much time in- 
vestigating the life of the sparrow and 
found that the two examples stated above 
are applicable to many other instances, 
which goes to prove that the sparrow is 
a very destructive bird and not only un- 
worthy of our protection, but worthy of 
our destruction. Alba.n L. Leger, 
Massachusetts. 
