WOW.:2ar15smil

 

Gamo started this whole "let's kill a hog with an airgun" thing to promote their Hunter Extreme line of airguns. I consider doing so irresponsible at best, dangerous at worst.

With something so underpowered as a .22 airgun at close range (I'm assuming a spring piston gun) or a .22lr at 100 yards, you simply cannot guarantee a clean kill, because your margin of error is less than range of effects cause stochastically. It wouldn't take much for a pellet or bullet to hit just slightly wrong and be deflected by the skull, or perhaps even fail to penetrate even with a decent hit. Then you've managed to senselessly wound an animal at best, and p*ssed it off at worst. Angry hogs are kinda unpleasant to be around.

Technically you could put a .22lr bullet through an elephant's eye into its brain and kill it. Does that sound like a good idea though? Just because you can theoretically do something doesn't mean you should do it. Remember you have an obligation to the animal to kill it humanely and to be able to do so reliably. I don't think you can guarantee that will happen with such underpowered guns. So I would consider killing a hog with an airgun or .22lr to be certainly technically possible, but unreliable, and therefore not a good idea.

 

Yay. A variation on the "shooting hogs with rimfires" theme.

Haven't had one in, oh, days

 

Dude, our own Digital Dan regularly whacks ferals with CB Shots from 10yards to, I think his long hit was 35 yards.
My friends who use high power air rifles typically use things like Crosman Marauders in the range of 35 ft/lb or higher, typically at 50yd or less.
Transverse hits between eye and base of ear or at oblique base of ear does the business.
You still have to be able to hit; many can't hit a target the side of a small lemon in field conditions.

 

I don't think you can hit at 100yd with a .22 under field conditions.

 

I think shooting any animal with anything less than a quick kill is cruel and should be discouraged. To consider shooting a wild hog with an air gun is nothing short of a "Here, hold my beer" macho image. If you are gonna do it, do it right, swift and painless with a larger calibre. WillyNC

 

I suppose that it is no worse than running up to the poor things and sticking them with Bowie knives. .22 rifles have been used as a part of hog slaughter since folks gave up using muzzleloaders for the purpose. This is not to say that I recommend either of these practices for wild hogs.

 

There's airguns and then there's AIRGUNS.

Doubt I'd pursue hogs with a run of the mill .177 or .22 cal air rifle but with a proper projectile and placement it could work I guess. Biggest objection I'd have is the design of conventional pellets of the skirted variety. Something akin to the old Sheridan cylindrical pellet might do the trick though. Or....

http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/

 

Says, DigitalDan...

I agree... the thread starts with hogs being shot with a .22 cal airgun... can it be done? Sure it can. Should it be done... absolutely not! But it can be done using air driven projectiles... just larger calibers, rendering higher energy... there are PCP's that are .45, .50, .54 calibers... they are carrying alot of energy... certainly enough to kill hogs... as a matter of fact the origin of PCP was (Wikopedia);

"But in the hands of skilled soldiers, they gave the military a distinct advantage. France, Austria, Japan and other nations had special sniper detachments using air rifles. The Austrian 1780 model was named Windbüchse (literally "wind rifle" in German). The gun was developed in 1778 or 1779[1] by the Tyrolese watchmaker, mechanic and gunsmith Bartholomäus Girandoni (1744-1799) and is sometimes referred to as the Girandoni Air Rifle or Girandoni air gun in literature (the name is also spelled "Girandony," "Giradoni"[2] or "Girardoni".[3]) The Windbüchse was about 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 pounds (4.5 kg), which was about the same size and mass as a conventional musket. The air reservoir was a removable, club-shaped butt. The Windbüchse carried twenty-two .51 in (13 mm) lead balls in a tubular magazine. A skilled shooter could fire off one magazine in about thirty seconds, which was a fearsome rate of fire compared to a muzzle loader. A shot from this air gun could penetrate a one-inch wooden board at a hundred paces, an effect roughly equal to that of a modern 9 mm or .45 ACP caliber pistol."

So... with the right equipment, hogs can be hunted... without the right equipment... they should NOT.

 

To anyone that is interested I will share a few thoughts on the subject directed at the issue of terminal ballistics, be they of the air powered version or that of rimfires/centerfires.

I do not recommend to anyone that they should make subjective evaluation of fringe performance from a ballistic perspective. Doing so is akin to voodoo. While terminal ballistic performance is fraught with variables there are certain aspects largely incontrovertible which allow objective evaluation. They are somewhat interrelated in many instances and independent in others.

First and foremost, FPE is subjective in evaluation of what is or is not possible. Momentum and sectional density are far more objective in nature. The classic illustration is a comparison of the .30-30 Winchester and .220 Swift, which generate similar FPE levels and with conventional cup and core bullets have far different applications due bullet performance, not energy levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density

While momentum is dependent upon mass and velocity, sectional density (SD) has much to do with retained velocity in terminal performance. Velocity is degraded by drag, that being significant in the terminal phase since lead alloy bullets tend to deform when striking flesh and bone, increasing diameter and thus reducing sectional density. In the absence of deformation (read: hard alloy, low velocity or combinations thereof) a bullet's sectional density will not change in significant fashion. Therefore, the only analysis required at that point is the drag associated the medium of penetration and the rate of velocity/momentum decay associated with that, and whether or not there is sufficient momentum to allow a bullet to transit a component of an animal's neural or circulatory system such that fatal disruption occurs.

I would ask that before one makes bold assertions as to what is or is not suitable for hunting a particular creature that they consider these issues and perhaps recognize that some folks are capable of doing those things necessary to make the seemingly unlikely rather commonplace. OTOH, if one knows precisely at what point a given bullet will not penetrate a hog cranium, do share the information, both as a measure of momentum and aspect. Curious minds want to know.

It's not my job to tell anyone what is prudent, nor what they are capable of accomplishing. I will on occasion try to provoke thought and investigation.

 

I'm a novice air rifle shooter... My Diana 34 Pro is the first 'rifle' of any kind I've owned or fired. So, I say this with humility and ignorance.

But, it strikes me that our idea of 'humane kill' has evolved quite a bit. Please understand, I'm not advocating for people going out to try to kill large game with underpowered rifles. I think that Gamo's original 'hog ad' appealed to everything bad about airgunning as a hobby and was irresponsible. Nonetheless, how 'humane' of a kill is humane enough?

I would never advocate going out and shooting a hog with a BB gun until it dies from bruises. And, when possible, a one-shot, instant kill is a great thing. But I'd suspect that is simply not always possible - even under ideal shooting conditions. So, there seems to be a range of humane, responsible hunting/kill etiquette that is difficult to nail down. As hunters, it strikes me that we need to be careful not to draw lines in the sand that can be used to condemn us later on.

 

I'm a novice air rifle shooter... My Diana 34 Pro is the first 'rifle' of any kind I've owned or fired. So, I say this with humility and ignorance.

But, it strikes me that our idea of 'humane kill' has evolved quite a bit. Please understand, I'm not advocating for people going out to try to kill large game with underpowered rifles. I think that Gamo's original 'hog ad' appealed to everything bad about airgunning as a hobby and was irresponsible. Nonetheless, how 'humane' of a kill is humane enough?

I would never advocate going out and shooting a hog with a BB gun until it dies from bruises. And, when possible, a one-shot, instant kill is a great thing. But I'd suspect that is simply not always possible - even under ideal shooting conditions. So, there seems to be a range of humane, responsible hunting/kill etiquette that is difficult to nail down. As hunters, it strikes me that we need to be careful not to draw lines in the sand that can be used to condemn us later on.

I've wondered about the evolution of standards for humane kills myself. I think the most striking demonstration of this is to compare very old technology (the bow), to the latest technology (rifle or shotgun w/ slugs). When using a bow, people seem to find it not unusual to track a wounded animal considerable distances. Whereas someone using a rifle or slug gun would find that if they had to do they same, they screwed up on getting a humane kill! It's an interesting double standard that illustrates the evolution of the concept of the "humane kill."

 

Maybe these...

 

A candidate for the Darwin Award - in the making!!

 

HeavyD, I am inclined to think what is possible is up to imagination and a willingness to not compromise the necessities required to achieve the objective. Question that arises from the original post is what is required to make the killing of hogs a with an air rifle a consistently repeatable event, or even if it is. I address this not as an advocate of doing so, but from the perspective of what is required in context of placement and terminal performance. If the gun/pellet combination used in the videos provide adequate penetration in defined circumstances and are so utilized within those parameters, the answer is clearly yes. Whether or not the average shooter has the knowledge and skill to do so is doubtful in my opinion.

Is probably why a lot of game and fish folks raise the bar so high in some states. I understand their intent when they set FPE thresholds or minimum calibers for certain types of hunting, but it reeks if ill informed decision making. I don't care what you shoot a hog with, if you hit them in the hoof with non-explosive ordinance they are going to run. If one is lucky they'll run away from you. If not, perhaps we're better off having a neophyte out of the woods while they heal up. Place the bullet properly and the affair is settled. It is a shame that more people do not understand that.

On a more personal note, I've killed more hogs than I can really total at this point, using rifles, pistols and shotguns. .22 rimfire to .44 caliber, .410-12 ga. I've yet to lose one though I've shot a couple twice with rifles. There's but one version of dead I'm aware of and how the shot is applied is far more important than what the shot was made with.

Shoot small,

Dan

 

Thanks, Dan... I agree. Just seemed to me that there's a looming side issue of what is 'humane enough' that could be problematic in the future.

As you rightly noted, shot placement is way more important than the amount of downrange energy a round has and yet both factors are crucially important to responsible hunting.


ed: Onemountain -> And, at what point does that changing perspective on 'humane enough' start to apply undue pressure on hunting as a sport?

 

ed: Onemountain -> And, at what point does that changing perspective on 'humane enough' start to apply undue pressure on hunting as a sport?

That's an interesting and thought provoking question, and one I certainly don't have an answer to. All I can do is offer some thoughts:

First, I find the "undue" part to be somewhat of a derailing point to my train of thought. Please note that the problem I have is not with the question, but rather with my own limited ability to understand and interpret it. At what point is pressure on hunting to be "more humane" is undue? In my mind this boils down to two ways:

1) If the changing definition of a "humane kill" requires measures that make hunting no longer sporting, as in no longer fair to the game

2) If the changing definition of a "humane kill" makes accomplishing one so difficult that hunting becomes largely impractical, e.g. no longer fair to the hunter.

One of the problems here is that the above are relative. What is "fair" to the game, and what is "fair" to the hunter? Unfortunately, just how relative those concepts are is demonstrated by the range of practices that people find acceptable, from those that don't really care so long as the job gets done, to those that think killing any animal is unacceptable!

This is also evident in the different disciplines of taking game: a trapper has one idea, a bow hunter has another, a rifleman yet a third and so on. Or so I see it.

Dan said that "there is but one kind of dead." True enough. But there is also a multiplicity of means to that end. Some are more reliable than others. And, perhaps more importantly, some hunters are more reliable with some of those methods than others. Personally, I would trust myself to take a hog with a .22lr firearm except at quite close range. This is a personal standard.

And therein perhaps lies the problem. Everyone has their own personal standard and personal capabilities. How do we codify them into a coherent policy that can be applied to all? If someone is capable of taking any animal on the planet with a .177 caliber target rifle with an absolute 100% reliability of no more than say 2 shots in 10 seconds, 50 yards and under, does mean we should lower standards for everyone to that level? I think most people would agree that to do so would be unreasonable.

I agree that shot placement is easily more important than energy at impact. But I also contend that one should have a reasonable margin of error for if shot placement is less than perfect. I also freely admit that said contention has a gaping hole in it: What is a reasonable margin of error? I'm not even sure what that is even when applied to myself and no others.

In short, I just don't know how to answer your question. I also contend that no way will everyone's answers agree either. So what are we then to do..? So far the adopted method seems to be to find standards that most agree on, and leave it at that. I leave it to the reader to evaluate that.

 

If humane had any thing to do with it, I doubt there would even be bow hunting.

 

Holy Crap!



With all due respect... bowhunting is probably "THE" most humane method of harvesting an animal... of ANY size. I am NOT trying to start a debate... but with bowhunting as with this discussion; energy and shot placement are THE major considerations... Ethical hunters use equipment that is sufficiently devastating and then apply it in an appropriate manner...

Shot at 15 feet... broadside double lungs... down in 3 seconds.

 

More ignorance.
A broadhead with good pass through both lungs results death in seconds.
No wild animal dies gently.

 

More ignorance.
A good pass through drops both lungs in seconds.
No wild animal dies gently.

What is your standard for how to produce a good pass through? A cartridge that always produces a pass through at any range? At some limited range? That does so xx% of the time? Is it permissible to do so with a bullet that can miss slightly but expand enough to still damage the lungs? What if doing so means using one that might not pass through 100% of the time on an ideal shot? How many seconds is okay?

On another note, I find your willingness to dismiss this discussion as "More ignorance" offensive. That I find it so is my problem, not yours.

But the reason I find it so may well be everyone's concern: it is ill-mannered and in being so detracts from the cordial atmosphere of RFC, and more importantly it isn't conducive to the ongoing exchange of ideas and opinions.

And it's rather ironic that you managed to follow up a comment on others' supposed ignorance with a lack of lucid syntax: did you mean "a good pass through both lungs drops in seconds?"

 

First of all there should only be one question on this subject, and it's very short. "WHY?" Are we just trying to stretch the limits so short that were trying to see just how little we can get by to kill something. Why not just be fair. That's why there are so many different calibers out there. It's being responsible. You no doubt can make a very horribly suffering situation with even the biggest calibers, but seriously. Let's put a little 5 th grade knowledge to the whole scene. Let's take these small caliber little gonads people and plaintrigued on the busiest highway we can find. We will give them a tricycle to scoot across traffic. Sure sometimes they will make it, but would they rather be driving an armored tank. YES!. If you can not handle and shoot accurately the appropriate calibers don't go hunting for the game.

 

If you can not handle and shoot accurately the appropriate calibers don't go hunting for the game.

I agree with that sentiment, but the question is what is the "appropriate caliber"?

Somewhere between blunt force trauma and hyper velocity whiz bangs I'd think. To restate my tempered thoughts, .22 air rifles, hogs and Dan is a combination you'll not see in this life, rest assured. But to provoke a few thoughts, I'll throw a log on the fire.

I've had much of the same objection thrown my way as a result of my penchant for killing hogs with CB shorts. The number is over 70 and only one has required a second shot. None have taken a second step after being shot. The distance at which I have confidence in the outcome correlates to my ability to put a bullet precisely where required, or about 10 yards. I have taken longer shots on occasion but not often. I have taken many at closer range and my target is the CNS. Brain or neck vertebrae.

You can believe with absolute certainty that I know what the POI will be at any range from the muzzle to 50 yards because I've done a lot of work at the range finding out. I understand the architecture of hog anatomy quite well in addition to how they move when feeding or alerted. Their movement is in part a function of their form. In other words they do not move their heads the way deer do in range of motion , speed or frequency. They are predictable to within about 90% certainty. That is my way of saying what works at close range on hogs is not the case with deer. Persons with a penchant for brain or neck shooting deer will eventually kick themselves in the butt after screwing up a shot and watching a grievously wounded creature run off to a miserable death. Each animal is a different deck of cards and should be pursued with that thought in mind.

Likewise, each hunter is unique and they have, in my mind, a moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to use their skill and understand both their own limitations and that of their chosen weapon. It in their responsibility to not take excursions beyond those limitations...ever.

The issue of what's humane is nebulous at best, but my own definition boils down to the thought that a properly placed shot to the boiler room will put most creatures down in less than 10 seconds. It's difficult to insure less but I've seldom seen it take longer. A CNS shot is right now, case closed. It's not up to me to enforce my standards on anyone else but me, but I don't have to have slob hunters for friends either.

There is nothing I know that is unique or special, or that cannot be learned by anyone willing to invest the time to do so. Whether or not that will happen is not up to me, nor is public opinion based on general knowledge or broadly accepted dogma a compass I follow. If one takes the time to start understanding the very fine but salient points of ballistic science they might find their thoughts driven in different directions.

Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor were each right, and they were both wrong.

 

Shot Placement

Here is an article that talks about some different items in killing power. http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm
Shot placement is number one with any hunting weapon. I personally will be killing hogs when I get back to Ohio with 22lr, maybe it will only be little ones around 50 #'s at 50 yards. I do know they will die very close to where they were shot. When I was younger, my first deer was shot with a 20 gauge slug and it split the spine. I dropped it right in the spot, but I felt bad because of my bad shot placement. It moaned something fierce and that sound is still in my head to this day. The next year my 2nd deer was shot with that same 20 gauge and it was right in the heart. It ran 30 yards and dropped over dead. I think you could only get to a perfect humane kill if the animal would walk up and put its head in a guillotine or let you perform a lethal injection. Other than that, it is up to the individual hunter to determine what the best choice for a humane kill on their hunt is.

 

I once killed a deer with a projectile moving just 88fps. That projectile weighed 12,600,000 grains, give or take a few. The projectile hit the deer in the boiler room, and said deer died quickly. The projectile, upon examination, had moderately deformed in the front but was still serviceable enough to use again.

That's right folks, just EIGHTY EIGHT FEET PER SECOND!



Thanks Dan for your intelligent, and insightful input, again.

I'll say it again.

I killed my very first deer with a .22. (I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations are up)

It was from a rest, the handle bars of my bicycle. The first deer I'd ever seen. I used a .22 long. The deer fell where it stood, when that little pill entered behind it's ear. I was just nine years old, and didn't know that I couldn't kill a deer with a .22L. Heck, I only knew it was a deer because of Walt Disney.

 

I once killed a deer with a projectile moving just 88fps. That projectile weighed 12,600,000 grains, give or take a few. The projectile hit the deer in the boiler room, and said deer died quickly. The projectile, upon examination, had moderately deformed in the front but was still serviceable enough to use again.

Ah yes, the bumper-point bullet Lucky for you the deer didn't deform or break through the glass portion of the ogive!

Heck, I only knew it was a deer because of Walt Disney.

YOU shot Bambi's mother, eh?

 

Blunt force trauma is the ultimate representation of the "big and slow" theory.

I got a buddy that shoots bowling balls from a mortar......

 

Reference Post #18

Since the post immediately before mine slammed archery tackle, I foolishly assumed one might deduce that I was referring to a 2 blade double lung pass through.

I have amended my response for clarity.

A bilateral pneumothorax is rapidly reliably fatal.

To suggestive the opposite is, as I said, ignorance. Statement of fact.

As for my syntax, I must apology. I'm work it since my stroke last month, thanks for noticing.

 

Since the post immediately before mine slammed archery tackle, I foolishly assumed one might deduce that I was referring to a 2 blade double lung pass through.

A bilateral pneumothorax is rapidly reliably fatal.

To suggestive the opposite is, as I said, ignorance. Statement of fact.

As for my syntax, I must apology. I'm work it since my stroke last month, thanks for noticing.

A suggestion: quote the post you're responding to so as to prevent confusion of the sort I suffered from. I read your post in an entirely different light now that I know you were referring specifically to the one before it. BTW, I hold said confusion to be more my fault than yours.

If you like I will edit my previous post.

I wish you the best of luck in your hopefully rapid recovery from your stroke, sir. Both my grandparents on my mom's side have had one in the last year; I've seen and heard their struggles. And I lost my grandfather on my dad's side to one just before this last Christmas. Get well soon. I wish you and everyone here at RFC the best.
*

That asterisk means something to me, but I don't feel like sharing it right now.

 

I am going to throw my twig in the fire too.
Caliber is almost negligible. SHOT PLACEMENT is key in any situation. I have been shooting airguns for years and could say "I have shot this critter at this distance" or " I shot that critter at that distance". I will not say what critters I have shot and at what distances because I don't want to stir the fire, just add to it. The one thing I will say is that life is a fragile thing and it does not take much to end it. Most firearms are over-powered for the job at hand. Everyone wants a flat trajectory so they don't have to think. I know where my round is going and how long it takes to get there. If I know the range and there is enough energy left in it when it gets to the target, it will do the job just as well as a bigger/faster round. I just had to think about it more than if I had used a bigger/faster round.


Ike

 

Sage comments, indeed.