Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Incendiary Image of the Day: Drone Loads Edition

(courtesy prodigalbrother @

It’s not like it hasn’t happened already. No, I don’t mean Iran, although yes, the Islamic Republic shot down a U.S. military drone. I’m talking about the SHARK (SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness) drone that an unnamed hunter at the Wing Pointe shooting club in Berks County, PA downed late last year. [Click here for a most excellent video of the event.] The fourth such drone that had been blasted out of the sky. And not the last, methinks.


  1. avatar Lance says:

    Sell me a box ill buy one Robert!!!

  2. avatar Sean says:

    I don’t think I can shoot down a drone with my 12 ga. And I don’t think anyone would sell me a surplus Hawk anti-air defense system.

  3. avatar JPD says:

    I can’t wait. In Texas, you do not need a stamp to shoot drones. Just Duck. So, I am off to buy some drone loads.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Do you roast a drone? How much meat can you expect to get off of a large one? Is it legal to bait them? Can they be shot while on the ground, or must you wait until they are airborne? Also is there a bag limit, and what is the stamp going to cost for these? So many what if’s come to mind also.

  4. avatar William says:

    These guys are a piece of work. They send up spy drones, under the guise of “protecting animals from cruelty”, (i.e., hunting), and bad-mouth the guys they were illegally SPYING on as “thugs”, because they fought for their privacy.

    If they’ll go up in manned drones in the area, I’m coming to shoot. Why won’t they? Are they “cowards” like the guys in the truck?

    SPY DRONES ARE FAIR GAME, no matter WHAT other thing they actually claim they’re doing.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I was going to post a similar comment to the YouTube video, but it seems that additional comments have been disabled. If a drone is interfering with my hunt, I’ll take the damn thing down if I can safely do so. Depending upon local and state laws, it may also be a crime to interfere with a hunt in progress.

      I wouldn’t condone torturing pigeons, but they are basically flying rats. I think these drone idiots were more interested in obtaining controversial footage to further their cause than protect those flying poop machines.

  5. avatar Skyler says:

    Iran claims to have shot down a drone. We don’t know that this is true. I believe someone might have admitted one stopped flying in Iran, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Iranians shot it down.

  6. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Y’know, methinks it ain’t O.K. to shoot at private property in a place where its owner has a right to use or leave it – especially a public place.

    Or should the nice folks with PETA feel free to toss a Molotov koktail in the bed of any pickup sporting a rifle rack so long as it’s not parked on the owners’ property?

    I’ll likely get flamed, but I don’t really give a flying flip.

    The OP makes us all look like kooks, and plays into the hands of the anti-2ers. Double plus ungood.

    1. No, Russ, the drones were flying over private property. The PETA people were told to leave by the owners. They didn’t. Their toys got broken. End of story.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Negative. It was in public airspace, hence its uncontrolled descent near its POO.

        Ones property boundary may extend vertically to the stars, barring civilian aviation easements above 500′, but it does not follow the chicken to the other side of the road.

        1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Then based on the device that got clobbered, you have proof it cleared 500 ft vertical height to qualify as public air space, naw, didnt think so, so your point about the PETA trespassing was?

        2. You’re claiming that it was flying above 500 feet, yet was shot out of the sky by a device that has a max range of about 60 yards? Um, no.

        3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          No, it didn’t clear the 500′ limit; that much was obvious.

          However, unlike the clip at the end – in which the SHARK doofuses are asking to get clobbered – the initial sequence showed the aircraft staying on its side of the road.

          Mind you, I’m no fan of the “we should eat only grass” movement, but the shooters shouldn’t have shot that thing down when and where they did.

          Not that I’ve any idea why someone should want to attend a pigeon shoot, but whatever floats their boot. M’self, I’ll stick to deer and wild turkeys.

        4. avatar Shenandoah says:

          500 ft? Don’t know what kind of birdshot you guys hunt pidgeons with, but that’s an awfully long shot to take a drone out of the sky…me thinks those warmduschers over at Sharky aren’t being entirely truthful about where their toy was smoked.

        5. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          I only mentioned 500′ feet because that’s the altitude at which their toy can cross the “hunters'” property line with legal impunity.

          Re-read my reply to JK.

        6. avatar JAS says:

          Drones also have FAA altitude restrictions and I don’t remember off hand but I think they have to fly them UNDER 500 ft. so they don’t interfere with manned aircraft.

        7. avatar Russ Bixby says:


          However, should they exceed 500′ it’s not O.K. for the “hunters” to shoot, unless their aim is to protect ant helicopters or ascending/descending Pipers in the vicinity.

          The FAA, however, might have a nice juicy fine waiting for them should they attempt such tricks.

          Sorry about the quotes, but I can’t think of a pigeon shooting spree as hunting…

    2. avatar Shenandoah says:


      If it was indeed shot over the roadway and in public space then I understand your point. From the video though it was tough to see conclusively where exactly the drone was in relation to the property lines.

      That being said, many states also have laws against interfering with the legal taking of game, and it certainly appears that these guys had the intent to disrupt legal hunting activities. Not to justify the illegal shooting of others’ property, but the folks at SHARK also need to realize that they may be breaking laws as well.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        No question of that, sir.

        The SHARKs were being buttheads, and “asking for it.”

        My assertion that the drone was likely still to the right of the road is based upon its falling vertically and without apparent control, to crash very near its point of origin.

        Unfortunately, the SHARKs are probably protected from having their toys shot out of the public sky by the same laws which unfortunately protect Phred Phelps when he “protests” the funerals of servicepersons.

        What a complex world in which we live…

        1. avatar Shenandoah says:

          That’s actually a good comparison to put it in perspective. Another example of a “justifiable act” not necessarily being a “legal act.” Phelps can’t be jacked in the jaw no matter how much garbage he spews, and an anti-hunting drone can’t be shot merely for being in the vicinity.

    3. avatar HAVE GUN says:

      Shoot a Cessna down claiming, insert reason you want.

      Fact is, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from the air.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        There is if it’s within 500 feet of the ground. If it’s over my property, and within 500 feet of the ground, it’s going down. Why do you think no charges were filed?

    4. avatar BigBore says:

      Wow, rational thinking, how refreshing. For most these days ‘keepin it real’ is just something they think is cool to say. The one thing that most don’t seem to consider is that if you DON’T bring it down it will circle and HE your butt!

  7. avatar Scrimshaw says:

    If I am legally shooting at birds, and a drone clears the treeline over my posted private property, no one should wonder why it gets shot down.

  8. avatar fuzzy says:

    Jamming the communications is presumptively illegal, as is shooting across a (public) roadway. What about lasers? Not enough to “shoot it down” or damage avionics, but what about dazzling the image sensors with a little extra light?

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Hmmm… that’s an idea. Don’t know about the legality of shooting LASERs at a non-living target, but it’s a delightful image.

      Use a CO2 cutting LASER. It emits in the infrared, so proving how the wee birdie got itself cooked would be more than a tidge tricky.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Or maybe modifying tracers into midget FLAK rounds…

  9. avatar JAS says:

    These new drones are a lot scarier than you might want to know. Pre-programmed GPS flight paths, 2KG payloads, explosives. Figure it out…

  10. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    The party flying the drone are anti-hunting activists. The people hunting are doing so legally on private land. The fact that one disagrees with what another chooses to do does not give a right to interference. Notice how activist reported to authorities, and was ignored…………

  11. avatar Truckinbutch says:

    Alvin York and many others exhibited a talent for shooting flying objects with a rifle . I would welcome the opportunity to join their ranks should my property be invaded by an unsolicited entity .

  12. avatar AaronW says:

    Drones are most vulnerable on the ground… just sayin’

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      So were ME-262s…

  13. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    In all fairness it probably quacked, Randy

  14. avatar Bear says:

    Drones. Are. Bad.

    I don’t cry when I hear that a PETA or SHARK or FART or whatever drone gets shot out of the air.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d like to shoot me one of them drones. Do you know anyone who does good drone mounts?

    Like Quint said, “Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!”

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      THAT made me laugh my arse clean off. Now I’m gonna have to have it reattached, darn it.

  16. avatar WLCE says:

    There’s a solution to such a problem

    Let freedom ring.

  17. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

    Remember those self guided slugs hornday was working on?

  18. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Could we get back to an important technical issue that seems to have been neglected? What are the TTAG contibutors’ recommendations concerning shot size and powder load for an effective 12ga shell to hunt these drones? #4 Buck? #6 upand game loads? Could we please see a testing program of various loads against different brands/sizes of snooping drones?

    Thank you for the assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email