54 Airking Pro question

[cjtamu]

Agreed. 54 is a good choice for groundhogs.

[Yogi]

Thanks for the reply!  I have a model 36 (it was my Dads) and also a FWB-124, in my opinion these are a lil to light to ethically kill a groundhog. I am sure some people can but most defiantly not me.

I gave a HW 95 to a buddy who lives in the Shenandoah.  He uses his HW 95 in .22 for groundhogs.  In his case it is usually a 20-30yd> shot.  No Problem!

-Y

[dtdtdtdt]

Regarding killing groundhogs.  I recommended a 54 in .22 to a friend a few years ago.  He bought one and last I asked he had killed 27 woodchucks (confirmed kills) with it.

He is a very good shot and as a longtime hunter who usually gets what he is after.  I don't know his preferred aiming point,  I am assuming brain shots. 

I conversed with another person on this site many years ago who killed a coyote with his - at short range.

50yds may be a bit much as the drop with a 22 gets substantial not much further out and may make really precise hits difficult.  Of course, that depends on the zero etc.

[HectorMedina]

Chris.- I love to disagree, ROFL! you are right and you are wrong. If you told a guy from Mississippi and a guy from Arizona the same numbers for humidity, one would say: "Sweet" and the other one would say "Clammy"
Tell a guy in Wisconsin and a guy in Nevada some temperatures and the responses would be different.

Numbers don't lie, and it is better to communicate in numbers than in relative terms. .  .  And that is Hector's General Theory of Relativity.  ;-)

Now, getting serious, woodchucks at  50 yards is a tall order. Even for a 0.22 LR RF it would be a tall order.
I would say that with the right training and knowing VERY well the wind patterns and the distances it is more than doable, but it will require not only a good gun, but the right projectile and LOTS of practice, patience and perseverance.

I believe that all living things deserve respect. So if we are going to take a life, we might as well do it in the most humane way. And humane here means less than 5 seconds and less than 5 yards from POI. In some situations, it may even be more restrictive.

For MANY reasons you do not want a chuck to die inside its den, so, . . .  MAYBE some limited "baiting" would be in order. Tease it out of its den with the occasional morsel, and then you will have the 5 yards.

It also means finding TWO best pellets: One domed/solid and one expanding. Because you may need to choose the pellet to the task at hand. AND it means setting up an ambush/blind. Define the field of battle, lay your position and the groundwork, and execute. Bring the enemy to YOUR terms.

It ALSO means doing a lot of testing. On the domed, it needs to fly true and stable out to maybe 55 yards. You can test pellet stability using smoking / cigarrette paper at different distances and seeing if the holes are truly round or not. On the expanding, it needs some testing in wet newsprint. So that you know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the pellet you chose expands at the distances you are shooting.

By the time you are done with all the testing, you will have enough time behind the trigger to be comfortable with the gun/pellet/scope combination.

For many reasons I would choose either the DIANA 54, 460 or 48 in that order. All in 0.22" All three of them take well to a bi-pod (the 54 better than the others), and they all have ample power to do the job with a well placed shot.
JMHO

Some years ago  I made a practice target in preparation for a hunt:



Print it to your actual chuck size and it should be useful.

HTH and keep us posted!






HM

[cjtamu]

Ha ha ha at Hector. I’ll have to save rebuttal for a later date as I need to go make lunch. But, as you can see in your example above, while numbers don’t lie the way they’re interpreted certainly can be a source of contention! Have made pretty decent career convincing people my numbers are correct LOL. I had the same thoughts you did about the distance for a groundhog. If that’s truly the distance I’d probably be looking at another power source. But I like your idea about baiting and getting closer. I’ll probably have to watch Caddyshack tonight for some pointers!

[dtdtdtdt]

A bit of a snark on the laminated stocks. 

Looking at the butt of Hector's rifle, it seems to me that the laminations are pretty thin.  Also, what are the strips made of?  Looking at them, I get the impression of wood chips imbedded in resin.  That kind of stuff does OK in compression but not so well when flexed side to side or in tension.  There are no fibers long enough to give lineal strength.  Reinforced as Hector had done seems a good way to stabilize them.  His experience supports that view.

I have TWO wood-wood laminated stocks made in the early 1950s or earlier.  One is walnut-walnut with each strip reversed to counter warping because of moisture.  The second is blond maple - black walnut strips that give the sort of view the red-black of Hector's rifle.  Each laminate strip is about 3/8" thick.  The first is on a customized Winhester 52C that I bought used 54 years ago.  I believe the stock was designed and sold by Al Freeland an old-time small bore shooter/gunsmith who designed and built LOTS of shooting stuff in that timeframe.  The second is a "heavy hunting" rifle stock in .25/06 built in 1951. It started life as a M1903A3 from WWII. I don't know where the stock came from but suspect it was one of the more reputable stock makers of the period.  Reinhart-Fajen or Bishop?  The rifles have been stable since then.  Lots of competitive shooting in one case and 1/2" groups at 100yds (less than an inch at 200yd) prove the case. 

If I ran the asylum, and wanted to make strong, light, and NON-wood stocks, I would use carbon fiber woven mesh as the base for strength and stability with an aluminum or steel inner frame to attach the action too.  Lots of carbon fiber stocks are appearing for many rifle types but ARE EXPENSIVE.  Most that I have seen have the carbon fiber mixed into resin that is then fused in a mold.  If the fibers are long enough they will work but short fibers may not be so good.  Hence the need for the skeleton under the fiber.

If I worked at Diana and wanted to make such stocks, I would use either carbon-fiber or fiberglas mesh layers oriented 45degrees off the lineal direction impregnated with their resin to make the layers and then laminate the alternate layers for the design that they want.  The orientation would give strength and stiffness.  An aluminum cradle to attach to the action would be a good idea too.  Al Freeland used an alumium channel from the pistol grip area forward to attach the action and provide a place to attach assessories.  Perhaps a Picatinny rail would be the modern equivalent??

Back to the wood versus composites - wood has done a pretty good job for rifles for about 5 centuries.  If available, I would always gravitate to a well-done wood stock.