Use enough gun!

[RetiredUSNChief]

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...

 

[Mike1234567]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

$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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.