Use enough gun!


PDA






ZVP
October 28, 2013, 06:56 PM
It really disturbs me that airgun companies Gamo of Spain in particular is promoting hunting Wild Pigs with airrifles! Will they take the game humanely? well that is up to you to see for yourself.
I have viewed the videos and others by other hunters and it appears that with certain alloy ammo, the airguns will drop a pig with a brain shot!
Frankilly, I look at some Hogs as too large to be taken with my ,357 Magnum handgun and it makea a bunch more power than any spring airgun! Frankilly I size my quarry to my equipment.
The tenacity of certain animals even the smaller ones negates using an airgun to take them.
I aman avid airgunner since 1971 and own many rifles but "I" wouldn't try a crazy shot like that at a hog! I have hunted rabbit, squirrels and pest fowl over the years but never considered pushing the dun/ammo combination on too large a game animal.
Maybe I am being over ethical and like powerfull hunting guns?
JMHO,
BPDave

If you enjoyed reading about "Use enough gun!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mauser lover
October 28, 2013, 06:59 PM
Have you taken a look at some of the big bore pre-charged pneumatics? Many of them rival 9mm/.38 special. A rifle is usually easier to hit with, so a brain shot isn't as hard.

There are a few that "blow" away the 9mm/.38 special too.

PabloJ
October 28, 2013, 07:05 PM
It really disturbs me that airgun companies Gamo of Spain in particular is promoting hunting Wild Pigs with airrifles! Will they take the game humanely? well that is up to you to see for yourself.
I have viewed the videos and others by other hunters and it appears that with certain alloy ammo, the airguns will drop a pig with a brain shot!
Frankilly, I look at some Hogs as too large to be taken with my ,357 Magnum handgun and it makea a bunch more power than any spring airgun! Frankilly I size my quarry to my equipment.
The tenacity of certain animals even the smaller ones negates using an airgun to take them.
I aman avid airgunner since 1971 and own many rifles but "I" wouldn't try a crazy shot like that at a hog! I have hunted rabbit, squirrels and pest fowl over the years but never considered pushing the dun/ammo combination on too large a game animal.
Maybe I am being over ethical and like powerfull hunting guns?
JMHO,
BPDave
It's been done in central Europe long ago with large bore pellet guns. Not sure what bore diameter these were but they were very powerful capable of taking wild boar.

Buck Kramer
October 28, 2013, 07:09 PM
Look into what #2 said. I've destroyed cement blocks in a single shot with those things. It was not a Gamo, but a South Korean company that made the one I used.

Coyote3855
October 28, 2013, 07:23 PM
Old news. Lewis and Clark took an air gun on their travels in 1803 and killed big game with it.

r1derbike
October 28, 2013, 07:32 PM
Take a look at the Crosman/Benjamin Rogue .357 air rifle, and watch some youtube videos. There are larger foreign calibers that are up to the task as well. .50 caliber and larger.

ChaoSS
October 28, 2013, 10:16 PM
Think this belongs in Hunting, not general, but whatever.

If you can make a head shot from the right angle with your .357 and you think that it is not enough gun, then yes, you just want too much gun. On the other hand, hunting pigs with a .177, no matter the velocity, is going to be a matter of getting just the right shot lined up. I certainly wouldn't want to try it, and I wonder how long that guy sat there waiting for the perfect opportunity to present itself.

Hunting with airguns is perfectly acceptable, but it is important to make sure you can make your shots humanely. There are airguns capable of punching a pellet through a pig end to end.

arizona98tj
October 28, 2013, 10:23 PM
BPDave....time to update your avid airgunner status with new information. Just do a Google for "large bore air rifle" or something like that. I saw from big game photos (big as in buffalo big) taken with modern big bore air rifles a couple of minutes ago when I was searching. I've no doubt you can find the same information. Shooting a wild hog shouldn't be all that difficult.

ChaoSS
October 28, 2013, 10:31 PM
To those who don't know, the OP is referring to a video made by GAMO showing a guy killing a pig with a .177 air rifle. Granted, it's pushing 1650 fps (they claim) but it's still a very light weight .177 pellet. He isn't talking about a big bore.

ngnrd
October 28, 2013, 10:49 PM
Whoa, there... Before you start accusing somebody of being 'unethical', let's think about this for a minute. Ethics are a personal thing. You have yours. I have mine. And Joe Schmoe from Wichita Falls has his. There are those that believe it's not ethical to take deer with a 223, and others that actually do it - and do it humanely - on a regular basis. Hunting over bait? Same thing. Hunting behind high fences? Yup. How 'bout hunting with any kind of a firearm instead of a more primitive weapon like a bow? Or hunting with a handgun? Or how about simply hunting in general? Yeah. All of these actions can be - and have been - singled out and their proponents accused of being unethical.

But the thing is, freedom is a great, yet curious thing. As long as an individual acts within the confines of the applicable laws, they are free to decide for themselves what methods and means are appropriate to harvest their game, with their personal ethics guiding their decisions. And those decisions may not be the same as yours or mine. But the great thing about freedom is that we do have choices, even though there isn't necessarily one 'right' choice, and even though you may not make the same choice as me, or as Joe Schmoe from Wichita Falls.

Now, personally, I wouldn't attempt to take anything bigger than a squirrel with my air rifle. But then, I have a pretty low powered unit that I bought specifically to eliminate nuisance squirrels, and not one of the big, powerful hunting units. So, there's that. :cool:

medalguy
October 28, 2013, 11:52 PM
I've seen the pigs around Wichita Falls pushing more than 300 pounds, and I can tell you I'm not using ANY air rifle to bring one of those beasts down. I almost hit one last year on Highway 70 north of Roby Texas (look THAT one up) and he looked like a decent sized cow standing on the shoulder as I whizzed past him.

JohnKSa
October 29, 2013, 12:40 AM
Use the right TACTICS.

An airgun is not a firearm just like a bow isn't a firearm. Hunting with a bow and using the same tactics as if it is a firearm would be foolish and unethical. Hunting with a conventional airgun as if it is a firearm is similarly foolish and unethical.

Hunting with a conventional airgun (as opposed to one of the large caliber PCP airguns which operate at blackpowder firearm power levels) requires an entirely different set of tactics than hunting with a firearm and therefore it's not productive to attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional airguns by comparing them or their power levels to firearms.

RetiredUSNChief
October 29, 2013, 01:03 AM
There's more to hunting than simply blowing away your target with the highest powered weapon you can get. There's the skill of the hunt to consider, as well.

For thousands of years, man has shown himself to be perfectly capable of taking all kinds of game through a combination of various tactics and weapons, none of which involved firearms of any kind until very recently in human history. Rocks, snares, sticks, spears, arrows, slings, knives, and even bare hands.

Part of the thrill of the hunt, for many people, isn't the ability to take game with a high-powered rifle and a four figure scope. It's the ability to track and take game with skill using what they have. Some game require more or different skills than others.

Is the air rifle capable of poking holes deep enough into a hog to reach vital organs? If the answer is "yes", then it's fully capable of being used to take down hogs in a hunt. The rest depends upon the skill of the hunter.

There are some truly awesome air rifles out there...air rifles capable of reaching 2,000 fps or more. .357, .45, and .50 caliber air rifles are capable of pushing bullets at 800 fps...sometimes more. That's plenty to poke a hole in a hog.

A 30-06 is quite capable of reliably reaching out well beyond 100 yards to take game. However, the bow hunter most certainly won't attempt such ranges. Likewise, one who hunts with an air-rifle should do so within the limitations of the rifle and his own skills.

plumberroy
October 29, 2013, 07:38 AM
the videos the o.p. is refering to shows large hogs taken with 177 to 25 cal air rifles . and at least the one by benjiman suggest their gun could be a quiet solution for hog problems . My concern which I have voiced before is, Yes it can be done by an expert hunter with self discipline and rock solid nerves . gamo and crosman lead you to think it isn't difficult to kill hogs with standard air rifles. Hogs are about the only animal in the lower 48 that don't have a problem spending their last few minute on earth chewing on you if you hurt but don't kill them . Some one is going to try to take a hog with an air rifle and end up hurt bad. ethics are a personal choice ethics base on bad adice from a proffesional hunter in this case could get you killed
Roy

RetiredUSNChief
October 29, 2013, 07:56 AM
This is both the risk and the challenge that some people willingly accept.

I've never been on a wild hog hunt...and I'd LOVE to go on one using a pistol for the challenge. And I'm not talking about some monster pistol, either.

plumberroy
October 29, 2013, 06:49 PM
This is both the risk and the challenge that some people willingly accept.

I've never been on a wild hog hunt...and I'd LOVE to go on one using a pistol for the challenge. And I'm not talking about some monster pistol, either.
Hunting hogs with a 177 to 25 cal air rifle is akin to taking a brown or polar bear with a bow It can be done by people highy disciplined and seasoned hunters. It is not something a newbie that just bought a bow 2 weeks ago needs to be trying . These videos made by airgun manufacturers or people who represent them suggest a air rifle with alloy pellets (which in my humble opinion are junk) is a good weapon to hunt hogs one video the shooter says this might be a good solution for hog problems . I am sure the lawyers kept him from saying it was a good solution .
A hog will flat eat you if he is hurting and thinks you did it
I would not have a problem with the videos if they told people in the video this is doable by a highly skilled hunter and if you mess up you have a good chance of getting hurt
Aslo I would bet money there is a back up gunner with a hammer gun off camera
Roy

ZVP
October 30, 2013, 03:17 PM
The Gamo video was shot with a .177 caliber rifle!
As I said i am a longtime airgunner and am familiar with the big bores but this was done with a Springer I .177 cal.
I suppose that my Ericsson require that the quarry be given a quick, positive kill not an experiment to see if a tiny pellet can kill. Just the way I was taught to respect the right to hunt...
O apologize if my ethics offended anyone.
ZVP

JohnKSa
October 31, 2013, 12:59 AM
I suppose that my Ericsson require that the quarry be given a quick, positive kill not an experiment to see if a tiny pellet can kill.It was not an experiment. It is certainly possible to ascertain ahead of time if the penetration is sufficient to reach the brain. Then it's just a matter of being careful to pick the right aiming point and shot angle and only shooting when within the effective range.

If you do some more searching, you will find other similar videos where big game is killed "quickly and positively" with conventional airguns. It does require a very specific technique and special tactics. Trying to hunt with a conventional airgun as if it is a firearm would be disastrous.O apologize if my ethics offended anyone.Please. The fact is that you jumped to conclusions about the video. The only thing remotely unethical about the video was that the author should have made it perfectly clear how different hunting with an airgun is vs. hunting with a firearm.

RetiredUSNChief
October 31, 2013, 05:16 AM
The Gamo video was shot with a .177 caliber rifle!
As I said i am a longtime airgunner and am familiar with the big bores but this was done with a Springer I .177 cal.
I suppose that my Ericsson require that the quarry be given a quick, positive kill not an experiment to see if a tiny pellet can kill. Just the way I was taught to respect the right to hunt...
O apologize if my ethics offended anyone.
ZVP

The fact that you're concerned about making an ethical kill and safety means that you're heart (and ethics) are in the right place. Certainly one should hunt with the skill required to complete the job properly, regardless of what one uses.

To that end, no apologies necessary.

:)

ZVP
November 3, 2013, 12:26 PM
Over the past decades I have hunted quite a bit with airguns and I realise the need for precise shot placement for a clean kill however these videos prokote dangerous situations, unsportsmanlke and irresponsible choices of gun/ammo and couls get someone injured badly plus causing a game animal a lingering and uneccary death,
Sorry I just can't go alongwith that progrem!
ZVP

Mike1234567
November 3, 2013, 02:04 PM
I'll just express my opinion by mangling and old cliche'... "Just because we CAN do a thing it doesn't mean we SHOULD do that thing."

I'll put it another way: If I'm guaranteed to be killed by someone then I don't want them to use a .177 pellet gun to do the job. I'd much rather take a 12ga shotgun blast to the base of the skull at point-blank range. If you're going to kill me then please be kind enough to use overkill rather than underkill... do it quickly.

JohnKSa
November 3, 2013, 02:22 PM
... these videos prokote dangerous situations, unsportsmanlke and irresponsible choices of gun/ammo and couls get someone injured badly plus causing a game animal a lingering and uneccary death...I've seen exactly the same things said about bow hunting and handgun hunting.

Irresponsible/uninformed people certainly could take the information in the video and make all your predictions come true. They could also do it even if hunting with a firearm.

The bottom line is that a responsible hunter makes the effort to insure that he uses his chosen equipment ethically and in a sportsmanlike manner.If you're going to kill me then please be kind enough to use overkill rather than underkill... do it quickly.First of all, the idea that hunters should always use overkill results in a slippery slope. Basically, there's no top limit to overkill, and someone can always come up with a failure story or express a concern about potential failures until the gun involved tops out the limit of what can be legally employed against game.

There are any number of reasons for using a hunting weapon with limitations compared to a modern scoped hunting rifle. That's why people hunt with iron sighted rifles, handguns, muzzle loaders, crossbows, compound bows, long bows, spears and airguns. Any of those weapons can be used irresponsibly or responsibly, the issue isn't the weapon, it's how the hunter employs it.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, using any hunting weapon other than a modern scoped hunting rifle is something we shouldn't do because it's not overkill.

Second, did you actually watch the video? The kill was instant. The pellet went directly into the brain and the hog was poleaxed--it fell directly in place. It fell just as it would have been if the pellet had been a bullet instead. There was nothing about the video that suggested underkill or that the kill could have been quicker.

It all comes down to the basic rules of hunting. Know your quarry, know your equipment and know your capabilities and then make responsible decisions based on that information. If you know your weapon will reliably put a pellet through the skull (has adequate penetration) and you know where to aim to hit the brain (know the killzone and required shot angle) and you know the range that you can reliably make the shot (hit the killzone) then there is nothing irresponsible about taking the shot. It's EXACTLY the same decision process that any responsible hunter goes through (or SHOULD go through) before taking a shot, regardless of the weapon involved.

blindhari
November 3, 2013, 02:28 PM
In the late half of the 18th century Austria adopted Giordiani's(?) air rifle for military use. 30 years later it was replaced.
Pros:
multi shot repeater (over 20 I think)
.46 caliber ball
no smoke
reloaded with out getting up (try that with muzzle loader)
150 yds useful range
Cons:
easy to break
needed highly trained troops
technology for high pressure air primitive
150 yds useful range
There you go a milsurplus rifle, .46 caliber, 150 yds useful (lethal) range, 20 shot fast load repeater, more than capable of an ethical kill on hogs available roughly 300 years ago. Wonder if it would be legal in California.

blindhari

Mike1234567
November 3, 2013, 05:55 PM
I'll repeat... if you're going to kill me then please don't use a .177 cal pellet gun. I don't trust your aim to be that perfect. Please use something that causes far more damage and is far more forgiving of imprecision than a .177 cal pellet. How many of us can state with full certainty that we can be perfectly precise each and every time? IMO, it's silly and on the verge of cruelty that's fueled by arrogance and sociopathy.

ChaoSS
November 3, 2013, 07:25 PM
I wouldn't say Cruelty and sociopathy. I mean, some people will say that about any type of hunting, as some people will miss no matter the weapon. There are people who might be able to more consistently kill a pig with that .177 break barrel than I could with, say, a .308 at 100 yards. I don't know. I certainly wouldn't try to take a large animal with a small bore pellet rifle. But I'm not good enough to do that. Others are.


But I'll tell you this, Mike, if I ever try to kill you, I promise to come after you with nothing short of a 105 mm cannon. That, I can guarantee.;)

RetiredUSNChief
November 3, 2013, 07:38 PM
I'll repeat... if you're going to kill me then please don't use a .177 cal pellet gun. I don't trust your aim to be that perfect. Please use something that causes far more damage and is far more forgiving of imprecision than a .177 cal pellet. How many of us can state with full certainty that we can be perfectly precise each and every time? IMO, it's silly and on the verge of cruelty that's fueled by arrogance and sociopathy.

*facepalm*

First of all, nobody here has advocated using a .177 pelllet for self-defense. The OP is only concerned about its use for hunting big game, such as hogs. Specifically, he's concerned about the ethics and safety of using such a weapon, especially given the more effective means available.

And if the .177 pellet (at 1700 fps) can acheive the penetration, then what difference would it make anyway if the hole in your heart is .177, .357, or .454?

This "perfectly precise" standard you mention makes no sense, either. A 9mm at 1100 fps through the arm is only marginally more deadly than a .177 through the arm at 1700 fps for any given penetration path. Miss a vital area with ANY round and its effectiveness is drastically diminished.

I'm not saying mass makes no difference...it most certainly does. But we aren't talking about cheap BB guns here, which is what I think most people have pictured in their minds whenever they hear "air gun" or "pellet gun".

Certainly a small mass at any velocity requires more attention to accuracy and a commitment to ensuring a kill because smaller mass bullets can much more easily be deflected, even if no bone is encountered.


What if a hunter wanted to go after hogs using an atlatl? Much the same arguments could be said against spear hunting, yet mankind obviously had great success with this method in our ancient history. Why? Because our ancestors understood what the weapon could and could not do and devised effective tactics to best utilize it accordingly. Just ask the Mammoths. Oh wait...

:scrutiny:

Mike1234567
November 3, 2013, 09:06 PM
RetiredUSNChief... You appear to be ex-mil. If you're faced with imminent death by firing squad wouldn't you want your executioner to use something more effective/humane than a .177 cal pellet gun? Would you trust your executioner to have perfect skill and perfect aim?

RetiredUSNChief
November 3, 2013, 10:34 PM
RetiredUSNChief... You appear to be ex-mil. If you're faced with imminent death by firing squad wouldn't you want your executioner to use something more effective/humane than a .177 cal pellet gun? Would you trust your executioner to have perfect skill and perfect aim?

A fair question...if the subject were about executions or self-defense. However, this isn't the issue the OP is addressing. He's addressing the issue of such weapons being used for certain types of hunting, such as hogs.

Hunting game animals isn't human execution, nor is it self-defense. We hunt animals using a variety of weapons and strategies. In fact, a fair portion of the world STILL hunts varieties of game using far more primitive weapons than rifles.


If I were to be given a choice in the matter of my personal execution, then I'd choose lethal injection. Essentially, the person is put to sleep first and then given something to stop the heart and breathing. But the manner of execution is not something a person has a choice in, so it's not something that's worth discussing.

JohnKSa
November 4, 2013, 12:54 AM
I don't trust your aim to be that perfect.
...be perfectly precise each and every time?
...perfect skill and perfect aim?Hitting a 2-3" target at 20 yards or less with a scoped long gun is not anywhere near the difficulty level that you're trying to make it appear.

It's no more difficult than hitting the 8" killzone of a whitetail at 80 yards.

That hardly requires "perfectly precise" aim or a shooter "fueled by arrogance and sociopathy".

How about a little more analysis and a little less drama.

Mike1234567
November 4, 2013, 03:59 PM
A fair question...if the subject were about executions or self-defense. However, this isn't the issue the OP is addressing. He's addressing the issue of such weapons being used for certain types of hunting, such as hogs.

Hunting game animals isn't human execution, nor is it self-defense. We hunt animals using a variety of weapons and strategies. In fact, a fair portion of the world STILL hunts varieties of game using far more primitive weapons than rifles.


If I were to be given a choice in the matter of my personal execution, then I'd choose lethal injection. Essentially, the person is put to sleep first and then given something to stop the heart and breathing. But the manner of execution is not something a person has a choice in, so it's not something that's worth discussing.
I used that example to try to make people think about the humane aspect of dispatching other living creatures with less-than-adequate firepower. If it's cruel and inhumane to use a .177 cal pellet gun on a human then it ain't too nice to dispatch a 200 pound animal with one either. A little squirrel or rabbit? Yes, of course a potent pellet gun is fine. Just not on a 200 pound animal.

RetiredUSNChief
November 4, 2013, 08:18 PM
I used that example to try to make people think about the humane aspect of dispatching other living creatures with less-than-adequate firepower. If it's cruel and inhumane to use a .177 cal pellet gun on a human then it ain't too nice to dispatch a 200 pound animal with one either. A little squirrel or rabbit? Yes, of course a potent pellet gun is fine. Just not on a 200 pound animal.

I understand.

But I submit to you that most people who would hunt accordingly aren't doing so because they don't understand what it means to shoot big game with such a rifle. (Though we both know there will always be a few people who either don't understand or just don't care.)

These people hunt this way for the challenge...and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

In the video example given, which is the one that sparked the concern by the OP, you'll note that the hog was instantly dropped with a skilled shot to the brain. Very likely this wasn't an accidental, or lucky, shot. It was the result of the hunter knowing the capabilities and limitations of his weapon and planning accordingly.

:)

JohnKSa
November 5, 2013, 01:25 AM
Yes, of course a potent pellet gun is fine. Just not on a 200 pound animal.Except it can be just fine on a 200 pound animal as the video (and other videos) demonstrates. It's just a matter of knowing the quarry and the limitations of the equipment/shooter combination and working within those limitations.

It's no different from hunting with any other weapon. They all have limitations that must be taken into account if the hunter wishes to be ethical/humane/successful.

I wrote a post on this forum when it first started to help start a discussion on the differences between hunting with firearms and airguns. I started out by showing a video of a hog being killed with an airgun.

However, the goal wasn't really to encourage people to hunt hogs with airguns, it was to make the point that trying to think about airgun hunting in the same terms used for firearm hunting is going to result in some misconceptions in theory and disasters in practice.

You can not seem to get past the idea of evaluating the viability of airgun hunting by comparing airguns to firearms. That is not any more productive than attempting to evaluate the viability of bow hunting by comparing the capabilities of bows to firearms. They are very different tools and must be used differently to be effective.

RetiredUSNChief
November 5, 2013, 03:58 AM
I have a Jivaro blowgun that I've owned for around 3 decades. I've taken a lot of small game and varmints with it. It isn't the first thing I'd think of for, say, deer...but I've made plenty of darts more than capable enough of reaching a deer's heart and in the heyday of my blowgunning years I've no doubt that I could have punched the shaft of one of those darts plenty deep enough to do so.

And, given my experience with it back then, I've no doubt that I could have penetrated a deer skull sufficiently to have hit the brain...provided I placed my shot accurately enough within my effective range. The penetrating power of piano wire from a blowgun is truly amazing.

All of which meant that for me to consider any such attempt, I would have had to hone my skills enough to get within my effective range AND place my dart(s) accurately and deeply.


If I were to have attempted such a hunt, it would NOT have been on a lark just for the fun of it. I would have practiced until I was sure of being able to place an effective shot at an effective range. And, like any responsible hunter, if I could not manage to get with my effective range, or was otherwise not in a position to to place an effective shot, then I would not take any shot at all. (All this assuming, of course, that blowgunning deer is legal in the first place...which I'm pretty sure isn't.)

Hunt within one's means and capabilities.

Mike1234567
November 5, 2013, 09:44 AM
I understand.

But I submit to you that most people who would hunt accordingly aren't doing so because they don't understand what it means to shoot big game with such a rifle. (Though we both know there will always be a few people who either don't understand or just don't care.)

These people hunt this way for the challenge...and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

In the video example given, which is the one that sparked the concern by the OP, you'll note that the hog was instantly dropped with a skilled shot to the brain. Very likely this wasn't an accidental, or lucky, shot. It was the result of the hunter knowing the capabilities and limitations of his weapon and planning accordingly.

:)
Granted... I'm not arguing your points. But how many people will see that video and try to duplicate that result without having those highly honed skills. Too, how likely is it that, even with those honed skills the shooter will err ever-so-slightly? IMO, and this is JUST MO, it isn't worth the risk of making the animal suffer unnecessarily.

You've answered the question, "Why do it?"... to prove one's skill. But here are a couple of adjunctives to that same question: 1. "Why would someone so deeply feel the need to prove he has enough skill to kill a 200 pound animal with a pellet gun?" 2. "Honestly, why 'risk' another creature's suffering just so we can say we can do something?"

Mike1234567
November 5, 2013, 09:54 AM
I suppose my past haunts me on this. I've seen a few critters shot right between the eyes with obvious brain shots with .22LR and, after the initial shock, they screamed in pain even after being shot 2-3 more times. I hated seeing that. If an animal must be destroyed or harvested then please use more gun than necessary... not one that might work if you're a perfect shot with perfect skills. Really, what's the point? IMO, that manufacturer is very irresponsible in suggesting this should be done... too many people will try to duplicate their result.

Nomad
November 5, 2013, 04:12 PM
Many states have studied this issue and some, Arizona being one, Fish and Game have allowed the use of PCP rifles on many game animals larger than pigs. There are of course caliber restrictions on some sizes of game. Some PCPs are very powerful and go up to 50 cal and above.

plumberroy
November 5, 2013, 06:41 PM
The part that is unethical to me is these commercials on youtube and that is what they are . Are trying to sell air rifles to less informed people on the primise that they are a good weapon for feral hogs. In the hands of a seasoned and discipline hunter The air rifles are acceptable hunting weapons It to me becomes unethical when 1. they disguise these commercials as hunting videos and 2 do not tell people the shooters are experts with years of experiance
Roy

Midwest
November 5, 2013, 08:28 PM
$1199 for an air rifle seems a little steep http://www.crosman.com/airguns/rifles/pcp/BPE3571

Are there any good air rifles above .177 between $200 or $400? One other question, I guess felons can use air rifles because they aren't considered firearms? So if the state allows hunting with a air rifle, felons can go hunting with an air rifle?

Mike1234567
November 5, 2013, 10:42 PM
Many states have studied this issue and some, Arizona being one, Fish and Game have allowed the use of PCP rifles on many game animals larger than pigs. There are of course caliber restrictions on some sizes of game. Some PCPs are very powerful and go up to 50 cal and above.
I'm not against using big bore air rifles on medium-large game. I'm only against using small caliber pellet guns on medium-large game.

RetiredUSNChief
November 5, 2013, 11:46 PM
Granted... I'm not arguing your points. But how many people will see that video and try to duplicate that result without having those highly honed skills. Too, how likely is it that, even with those honed skills the shooter will err ever-so-slightly? IMO, and this is JUST MO, it isn't worth the risk of making the animal suffer unnecessarily.

You've answered the question, "Why do it?"... to prove one's skill. But here are a couple of adjunctives to that same question: 1. "Why would someone so deeply feel the need to prove he has enough skill to kill a 200 pound animal with a pellet gun?" 2. "Honestly, why 'risk' another creature's suffering just so we can say we can do something?"

In all fairness, how many people have seen videos of ANY given hunt and gone out inadequately prepared to properly execute one, regardless of the weapon used? There are plenty of examples out there about people who couldn't hit the broad side of closed barn from the inside, yet they're out there slinging lead indiscriminately, people who pull over to pop shots at deer using a small caliber handgun from their vehicle, and people who couldn't tell the difference between the male and the female of a species during the seasons.

When all is said and done, the final proof for ANY hunting effort is in the pudding. Even those who have prepared properly must STILL prove themselves in the field, regardless of what they use.


A logical extention of what you're saying is that either NOBODY hunts ANYTHING because the POSSIBILITY always exists for only wounding or otherwise unethically hurting animals

OR

NOBODY hunts ANYTHING unless they ONLY do so with arbitrarily established weapons and calibers.


If a person wants to hunt big game with an air rifle, I say more power to them...PROVIDED they adequately train to do so within the capabilities and limitations that the weapon entails. (And it's legal to do so, of course.)


Don't get me wrong...I'm totally with you on the ethics of hunting. One should NOT use a weapon with which they cannot reasonably take down game quickly and efficiently and without unduly placing the animal in extended pain.

Mike1234567
November 6, 2013, 12:24 AM
In all fairness, how many people have seen videos of ANY given hunt and gone out inadequately prepared to properly execute one, regardless of the weapon used? There are plenty of examples out there about people who couldn't hit the broad side of closed barn from the inside, yet they're out there slinging lead indiscriminately, people who pull over to pop shots at deer using a small caliber handgun from their vehicle, and people who couldn't tell the difference between the male and the female of a species during the seasons.

When all is said and done, the final proof for ANY hunting effort is in the pudding. Even those who have prepared properly must STILL prove themselves in the field, regardless of what they use.


A logical extention of what you're saying is that either NOBODY hunts ANYTHING because the POSSIBILITY always exists for only wounding or otherwise unethically hurting animals

OR

NOBODY hunts ANYTHING unless they ONLY do so with arbitrarily established weapons and calibers.


If a person wants to hunt big game with an air rifle, I say more power to them...PROVIDED they adequately train to do so within the capabilities and limitations that the weapon entails. (And it's legal to do so, of course.)


Don't get me wrong...I'm totally with you on the ethics of hunting. One should NOT use a weapon with which they cannot reasonably take down game quickly and efficiently and without unduly placing the animal in extended pain.
While I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the morality of using what most would consider a grossly underpowered firearm for a given animal. I'm not putting tight constraints on caliber vs. particular game but, IMHO, a .177 cal pellet gun to dispatch a 200 pound hog is both silly and potentially inhumane.

Putting it another way, would you use a tiny pellet gun if there's a chance an animal will turn and attack? Or would you want a little more insurance so you can more easily put that animal down and avoid serious bodily harm? I know the hunter in the video was relatively safe but this isn't "really" my point.

RetiredUSNChief
November 6, 2013, 12:54 AM
While I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the morality of using what most would consider a grossly underpowered firearm for a given animal. I'm not putting tight constraints on caliber vs. particular game but, IMHO, a .177 cal pellet gun to dispatch a 200 pound hog is both silly and potentially inhumane.

Putting it another way, would you use a tiny pellet gun if there's a chance an animal will turn and attack? Or would you want a little more insurance so you can more easily put that animal down and avoid serious bodily harm? I know the hunter in the video was relatively safe but this isn't "really" my point.


It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

We're both clearly on the same page with respect to ethically and safely taking game and we've both discussed our reasoning and concerns about it. We seem to differ only in the particulars with respect to how to go about accomplishing this.

In this last example you cited, given what I've previously posted, I would clearly advocate utilizing an air rifle capable of driving a small pellet at velocities of 1700 fps and demonstrably capable of punching a hole through the skull and dropping a hog in its tracks. You, however, would not because for you the increased odds of a potentially leaving a wounded animal or having that animal attack you are not acceptable.


I view both of our perspectives as acceptable, because they are both focused on the ethics and safety involved.

:)

JohnKSa
November 6, 2013, 01:08 AM
I disagree with the morality of using what most would consider a grossly underpowered firearm for a given animal.Conventional airguns are not firearms at all--underpowered or otherwise. They fit into an entirely different class of weapon and people who hunt with them or wish to hunt with them need to understand that.

Trying to characterize airguns as grossly underpowered firearms is just as misguided as trying to characterize bows as guns that shoot long pointed bullets really slowly or as trying to characterize handguns as rifles with really short barrels.

Imagine how a hunter with lots of high-powered, scoped rifle experience who had never seen a bow before would characterize bowhunting. He would be very concerned that someone would try to use such a range-limited weapon firing a projectile with zero shock on a deer. "Why the arrow is barely moving compared to a bullet, and there's no temporary cavity at all. The sights are imprecise and if you incorrectly estimate the range, you'll wound the animal due to the rainbow trajectory."

All of those statements are correct, but what the hunter isn't taking into account is that the bowhunter knows all about those limitations and deals with them constructively in order to take game ethically and humanely. The fact that a bow can't compare to a scoped rifle for power and range doesn't mean that bowhunting is automatically inhumane or unethical, it just means that the hunter who chooses to use a bow has to use a different set of tactics.

Mike1234567
November 6, 2013, 01:11 AM
It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

We're both clearly on the same page with respect to ethically and safely taking game and we've both discussed our reasoning and concerns about it. We seem to differ only in the particulars with respect to how to go about accomplishing this.

In this last example you cited, given what I've previously posted, I would clearly advocate utilizing an air rifle capable of driving a small pellet at velocities of 1700 fps and demonstrably capable of punching a hole through the skull and dropping a hog in its tracks. You, however, would not because for you the increased odds of a potentially leaving a wounded animal or having that animal attack you are not acceptable.


I view both of our perspectives as acceptable, because they are both focused on the ethics and safety involved.

:)
I agree... and very good summation. :)

Mike1234567
November 6, 2013, 01:16 AM
Conventional airguns are not firearms at all--underpowered or otherwise. They fit into an entirely different class of weapon and people who hunt with them or wish to hunt with them need to understand that.

Trying to characterize airguns as grossly underpowered firearms is just as misguided as trying to characterize bows as guns that shoot long pointed bullets really slowly or as trying to characterize handguns as rifles with really short barrels.

Imagine how a hunter with lots of high-powered, scoped rifle experience who had never seen a bow before would characterize bowhunting. He would be very concerned that someone would try to use such a range-limited weapon firing a projectile with zero shock on a deer. "Why the arrow is barely moving compared to a bullet, and there's no temporary cavity at all. The sights are imprecise and if you incorrectly estimate the range, you'll wound the animal due to the rainbow trajectory."

All of those statements are correct, but what the hunter isn't taking into account is that the bowhunter knows all about those limitations and deals with them constructively in order to take game ethically and humanely. The fact that a bow can't compare to a scoped rifle for power and range doesn't mean that bowhunting is automatically inhumane or unethical, it just means that the hunter who chooses to use a bow has to use a different set of tactics.
My point is that there are far more effective options to dispatch a 200 pound bore than a .177 caliber pellet rifle. I think it's silly... just MHO, of course.

JohnKSa
November 6, 2013, 02:12 AM
My point is that there are far more effective options to dispatch a 200 pound bore than a .177 caliber pellet rifle.Surely there are. One could say exactly the same thing about:

1. Handguns.
2. Muzzle loaders.
3. Cross bows
4. Long bows
5. Compound bows
6. Iron-sighted rifles

Yet any of the items on the list CAN be used effectively and humanely take large game animals if the hunter involved uses the proper tactics when employing the weapon.

So is a person who hunts with a bow, a muzzle loader or a handgun, being inhumane or unethical because he chooses to not to use a weapon that is "far more effective" than the one he hunts with? Is he being silly? Not if he knows the limitations of his weapon, knows his own limitations, knows his quarry and makes sure that he operates within the boundaries imposed by those limitations and that he uses tactics that are proper for his weapon.

If you enjoyed reading about "Use enough gun!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!