The .177 for hunting ?

[Bryan Heimann]

I've been reading this thread a while and here is my 2 cents:

Im from Slovenia, Europe, and we are not allowed to hunt with air rifles at all here. The main argument is that there is too much risk that the animal will not be killed humanely.
Really? yes, really.

The way i see it, its a balance of caliber and skill. I mean, we have probably all seen the youtube videos where people shoot prairie dogs with .50 cal powder rifles ...  lots of kill, need little skill.

Here is a nice pic that illustrates this balance:


In a nutshell, the larger the cal the larger the kill zone. So with a .50 cal you hit this woodchuck pretty much anywhere and its dead instantly.

If you really want to use .177 for hunting, you better have an accurate rifle and lots of skill to put that shot exactly where it needs to be, and using hollowpoints wouldn't hurt either. Larger calibers are more forgiving.

The bottom line is, the animal should not suffer because you couldn't get the right shot placement.

A woodchuck hit in the guts with a centerfire varmint cartridge can be literally blown in half with part of it's mid-section splattered all over, and there's a pretty good chance that he'll still crawl for his burrow.  Sometimes they will still make it to the burrow before they pass. He's dead in a few seconds, but not instantly.  I have read the article that this diagram comes from, and the author hits one from about 65 yards in the chest with his .25 beeman kodiak and the animal retreated to his burrow- probably still dies but it's not an instant kill.  You have to be realistic about things.  As hunters we do our best to make sure the animal does not suffer, but the instant kill is a myth.  Even with a perfect headshot I believe there is a moment that the animal suffers pain, but it's very brief and the most humane way to go.  Still, the vital organs are considered by most sportsmen to be the most humane place to shoot an animal because the kill zone is much larger and it is a higher percentage shot- meaning less chance of a wounded animal surviving but starving to death from being crippled.  With headshots there is a chance you might hit the animal in the jaw or through the nasal cavity and probably other ways you can wound it.  In the airgun world- especially with. .177- you are dealing with a smaller kill zone in the vitals because of the small diameter projectile and lack of sufficient energy to cause adequate hydrostatic shock to stop the animal.  So headshots are a lot more common, but we limit our range and restrict ourselves to get better angles to ensure our quarry doesn't suffer.  Bigger projectiles mean you have a little more room for error, but there is still a good chance the animal is going to be in the throws of death for a few seconds before it dies.  So you have two choices: headshots for instant death and recovery of your game- but smaller kill zone and btherefore bigger chance of a wounded animal that suffers- or vitals which are a bigger kill zone but the animal makes it to a burrow or hollow tree before death.  So now there is the other ethical question- do you want to risk the loss of game and wasted life?  Personally I will take a headshot if I think I have one I can make with 100 % consistency, or if not I will take a boiler room shot if I believe I have enough gun to stop them from escaping to their den before death.  Sometimes even a animal hit with a shotgun- with multiple hits in vitals AND brain gets away to probably die in it 's den.  As a hunter you have to do your best to give the animal a humane death, and do your best to recover it, but at the end of the day you have to be ready to accept the fact you may not succeed.  Then you have to be able to look at yourself and know you did all you could to ensure it's humane death.  But there is always that chance.  When it comes to pest control- if it is a animal you do not intend to eat- I think your more ethical decision would be to aim for the vitals unless you are within range to place a headshot with certainty.  The animal may make it back to it's den, but it is a higher percentage kill shot.

[jrhunter]

I've been reading this thread a while and here is my 2 cents:

Im from Slovenia, Europe, and we are not allowed to hunt with air rifles at all here. The main argument is that there is too much risk that the animal will not be killed humanely.
Really? yes, really.

The way i see it, its a balance of caliber and skill. I mean, we have probably all seen the youtube videos where people shoot prairie dogs with .50 cal powder rifles ...  lots of kill, need little skill.

Here is a nice pic that illustrates this balance:


In a nutshell, the larger the cal the larger the kill zone. So with a .50 cal you hit this woodchuck pretty much anywhere and its dead instantly.

If you really want to use .177 for hunting, you better have an accurate rifle and lots of skill to put that shot exactly where it needs to be, and using hollowpoints wouldn't hurt either. Larger calibers are more forgiving.

The bottom line is, the animal should not suffer because you couldn't get the right shot placement.

even with a  .50 you have to hit vitals you can't just put a bullet in its butt

[Geoff]

Sean, If you are shooting up its butt, that would work.   

[gandalfretlaw]

My opinion is that whatever shoots around 900-950 is best for hunting. This speed produces the best shock value and pellet expansion while keeping under supersonic accuracy and noise issues. So I'd rather have a 900fps 177 than a 800fps 22. The trick is you can get a 22 that shoots 900 just fine. My Benji NPXL 1100 shoots right around 925 with medium weight pellets where with my Walther 177 I have to shoot ten or more grain pellets just to get it subsonic.

You often hear about the 22 being much more effective but their generally comparing a high power beast that shoots the 22 around 900 to a relatively normal 177 that shoots around 900, or even adjustable PCP guns. Of course it's going to have more knockdown. Also with both guns shooting around 900 the flat trajectory and range is going to be near identical.

The same goes for 25. Get a 25 that shoots at 900 and you'll have a hunting machine.

Disclaimer - Walter not worthy at hunting. I did manage to dispatch a noisy Rooster in my back yard at twenty feet one morning with the Walther. I had a RWS Basic match in it (not ideal) which no doubt had a supersonic crack but I didn't care. One shot and the bird shut up. Cleaning him later I found that I completely shattered the base of his neck and one clavicle. The pellet didn't exit but did some amazing damage with bits of bone everywhere in the area.

It wasn't just a random bird. I was butchering a few chickens and I thought I wrung his neck properly; but a few seconds later he pops up and starts playing hide and seek screaming at the top of his lungs the entire time. Ran inside and grabbed the first pellet rifle and ammo I could find.

[jrhunter]

Sean, If you are shooting up its butt, that would work.   

depends on a .50 AE. .50 air rifle, or .50 BMG 

[Bullit]

I think its energy transfer, 22 vs penetration, 177. It could go strait trough but not much energy.

If you look at the .177 HEAVIES, from some of the more powerful springers...you have some pretty good weight and velocity.
It takes more power (30% or 1.30more +/-) for the .22 to punch thru, than the .177,   just based on the cross section area.  Same principle as punching a hole in steel.  So while you hit with both calibers @12fpe @ POI, you lose a lot of advantage with the .22 at impact.  So if your .22 gets you less than 40% more FPE at impact, (ie 35-50yds)...you don't gain alot after impact.   
Since they both have more than enough to do the job at 50yds (with a proper rifle) there is no large FPE advantage between the .177 Heavy, and average .22 pellet weight, from similar powered rifles, because of the loss of energy at (POI) impact.
I'm all for the .22 as it does hunt great.  I did it...with identical rifles.    But I will not announce that using the .177 is wrong, or unethical, or any of that rot.   Nor will a lot of us guys that do it.  That's just narrow.

The .177 heavy pellet in a healthy 18FPE springer is a deadly combo at 60yds,,, and the .177 medium weight pellet is deadly and a "pleasure to shoot", in a good 12FPE rifle at 35yds.

[nunofrancisco]

-

[Bullit]

Nuno!   I am very happy to see your post. And very glad to see your opinion.
We had discussions over this topic before, and your post was a joy to see.
There is beauty in balance.   Nuno,  you are one of the best "latest"  testaments to opinion of balance over power.   Best to you in the future!!! 

[nunofrancisco]

-
 

[gandalfretlaw]

I think penetration will be roughly the same for a 177 at 900fps as a 22 at 900fps. Am I wrong on this.

[Bryan Heimann]

I think penetration of different calibers at different velocities is a can of worms.  I will not go into details, I've done my own testing and I am sold on a bigger and heavier pellet.  I do believe momentum is as important as energy, and velocity at an energy level still must be considered.  The only good way to figure it out is to experiment on different testing mediums.  Ballistic gel doesn't account for hide and bone, and vice versa for harder materials.  So at the end of the day it just comes down to your personal preference.  I have no doubt about the lethality of a powerful .177 airgun, and heavy .177 pellets still carry a lot of energy downrange.  To each their own, I have my way and you have yours.  Lower power guns are best in .177, as are mid powered guns especially after given a soft tune.  But as the power level increases and the quarry become tougher and harder, you need bigger and heavier pellets.  A .177 lead pellet comes apart too easily, not enough mass retention for adequate penetration on thicker bones.

[nunofrancisco]

-

[Bryan Heimann]

I think penetration will be roughly the same for a 177 at 900fps as a 22 at 900fps. Am I wrong on this.

not wrong, but if same power level, a .177 will require less energy to penetrate better (deeper) than a .22.

i mean, a 12fpe 177 will penetrate same was a .22 with 18fpe. All depends on pellet too, a hollow point will never penetrate so well like a domed or a pointed. And ofc, a 18fpe .22 will penetrate same was a .177 12fpe, but will have extra 6fpe. if you chose a specific gun, powerlevel will be the same for each caliber... not so big variations.

And ofc, there is the "loudness" of the calibers. If you hit a pigeon with a .22 or a .25... will make a bigger PLOOOOOOOOCKKKKK than a .177, cause the energy tranfer. But that dont mean a better or more human kill, dont forget that point.

.

At mid level power I absolutely agree with you.  And inside 25 yards i think a .177 rifle shooting at or near 12 foot pounds is capable of consistent, humane kills on the majority of small to medium sized game.  But when you step it up over 20 fpe those .177 pellets disintegrate on impact with a heavier piece of bone.  You reach a point that increasing power is detrimental to penetration, not in tissue but definitely with bones.  Could be the difference between a fragmented, deflected pellet and a crushed skull.  Weight and design of projectile and angle of the shot are probably more important but I still think it makes a difference.  I also have to agree however that at about 17 or 18 fpe with a heavy pellet you can probably do as much with that as you can with anything else in a spring powerplant.  So i still think it's about personal preference more than anything. 

[gandalfretlaw]

Yes, what got me thinking was comparing my 177 whisper which shoots around 830 to my NPXL22 which is around 930. The XL has better penetration.

I noticed in chairgun that the trajectory for a 22 and a 177 shooting the same pellet shape and relative weight (CPHPs) at the same FPS was about the same. To me this means that the punch through for each is about the same but the amount of physical impact would be more for the heavier pellet.

Carried to extreme though a 45ACP (230gn) travels around 900fps but has a significantly greater penetration (around 17" ballistic gel). This makes me think that as the caliber and weight increase the penetration also increases.

I also think that a very, very heavy 177 would have a ton of penetration FPS being equal. My Walther has to have ten grains or better to even be subsonic. To me that makes it a perfect hunting round. Excellent penetration with a small footprint.

I also think small power plant 177, large power plant 22, huge power plant 25. But as much power plant as you can pour into a small caliber creates a huge amount of penetration and power. The limitation is the sound barrier. For accuracy you don't want to get very close to it.

On coconut the Walther penetrates fine and the pellets do tend to disintegrate and imbed in the far side, but if it were grey matter that would mean a shotgun like effect. The XL22 on coconut penetrates and stays together to imbed in the other side.  Both are shooting around 25fpe. The 13fpe Whisper 177 does not penetrate coconut.

[Bryan Heimann]

I'd like to see the results of a 10.5 grain pellet on the same coconut with about 17-18 fpe behind it.  Especially a harder pellet like a heavy Premier

[gandalfretlaw]

I don't think I have anything in that range. I think my big cat is around 15, just a bit harder than the Whisper and it's probably the hardest of the light guns. Then my guns jump up to the 25 range with the NPXL and the Walther (really a Hatsan). I'd think that 17-18 would penetrate just fine. I'm pretty sure the NPXL 22s that didnt' break up were CPHP. I shot various pellets (probably including CPHPs with the Whisper and nada). A 10.5gn pellet out of the Walther does penetrate; don't remember if it comes apart or not. I do remember those destroyers splatted on the surface and the core penetrated like a needle. At first I though round nose vs match would make a difference, but they seem to penetrate about the same.

[Bryan Heimann]

The wads might be able to hang with the domes in the coconut test because they punch the first layer equally and neither have enough energy to do anything to the second.  I think a better test of them would be a coconut filled with gelatin.  I wonder if anyone has tried that, or if there is a gelatin out there with similar density to brain matter

[gandalfretlaw]

Coconuts are very good for a cranium substitute. They are filled with milk. Not exactly gelatin, but close. Little thicker than water which is half the density of gelatin. Also there is a skin followed by a hard bone followed by a softer meat then the milk, then repeat. If it penetrates coconut it should do the same for most any game.

[nunofrancisco]

-

[Bullit]

Walter, perhaps you can do some video with some firm data,  for the guys to watch!   I'm sure it will entertain everyone.   Who wouldn't wanna see firm data and on top of that....a coconut leak?