Author Topic: Hunting rifle selection - round #2. (Read 19141 times))

DWSmith · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2015, 10:09:17 PM »

Quote from: DanD on June 23, 2015, 08:43:51 PM

Quote from: DWSmith on June 23, 2015, 06:31:39 PM
That's the one I keep gravitating towards.

Heck, it's just the first of many, right? I'll just get one and start saving up for the second rifle.
Yes! Good choice! Many happy shooters with that rifle- aftermarket parts available, easy to work on, much info on do it yourself mods if you are into tinkering.

Will tinkering with cars, tractors, farm implements, ham radios, etc. qualify me for airgun tinkering?

DWSmith · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2015, 11:29:19 AM »

I feel sort of bad after all the great help that you guys gave me regarding springers. The pumper (392) should be here by Friday.

I dunno. When I wanted a bow and arrow outfit several years ago I got a compound. Had it for about a year. Put sights on it and hit the bullseye a lot. When I was a little kid I always shot a naked fiberglass recurve. The compound bow never felt right. I traded it in on a nice hunting recurve and never looked back. I never put sights on it either. I got a book by Fred Asbell on instinctive shooting and had a blast.

I think the springer vs. pumper is the same type of thing for me. I may as well just get a pumper first. I may stick with pumpers.

DanD · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:43:56 PM »

Quote from: DWSmith on June 23, 2015, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: DanD on June 23, 2015, 08:43:51 PM
Quote from: DWSmith on June 23, 2015, 06:31:39 PM
That's the one I keep gravitating towards.

Heck, it's just the first of many, right? I'll just get one and start saving up for the second rifle.
Yes! Good choice! Many happy shooters with that rifle- aftermarket parts available, easy to work on, much info on do it yourself mods if you are into tinkering.

Will tinkering with cars, tractors, farm implements, ham radios, etc. qualify me for airgun tinkering?

Totally qualified.

DWSmith · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2015, 03:24:25 PM »

Now I've done it! During lunch break I went to Scheels. I've never owned a pellet rifle in my life and now I've bought 2 in about 20 hours.

Picked up a Crosman 2100 for my son and his son to use this summer. Yeah right! It's mine but they can use it all they want. I've seen some good things about the 2100.

Can't have too many air rifles, right?

Meann-Machine · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2015, 03:34:06 PM »

Dan,
Two weeks ago I went to my buddy's and shot for the afternoon. I'm estimating I sent roughly 125 rounds down range through my Theoben. We were shooting at empty .22 casings and shotgun primers at 32 yards and 50 cent piece spinners at 50+ yards. I could not have done that with a pumper. That type of practice is directly translatable to the field. A few years ago, I spent much more time in the early fall-winter shooting offhand, I estimate roughly 1500 rounds. Deer hunting in the late, late season in southern Iowa, where you can use a rifle, I shot a deer standing, offhand, with open sights, using a Marlin lever action 35 Remington brush gun through the heart and both lungs. The measured distance was 320 yards. I attribute that shot to the countless hours of air rifle shooting in the months before. That type of practice is just something a pumper can't offer you.

Bullit · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:02:29 PM »

Wow! ... You definitely went to ultralight FPE purchases! Do you know that you have to be very careful of your scoping mounts for the 392? They don't have standard dovetails for scopes. But then with such low power you really will be close and up front, for hunting... Look forward to your stories and photos in the Hunting Gate.
G'Luck to you

DWSmith · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Bullit on June 24, 2015, 04:02:29 PM

Wow! ... You definitely went to ultralight FPE purchases! Do you know that you have to be very careful of your scoping mounts for the 392? They don't have standard dovetails for scopes. But then with such low power you really will be close and up front, for hunting... Look forward to your stories and photos in the Hunting Threads. G'Luck to you

Yep, I'm aware of the 392 needing the intermount and rail to put a scope on it. I'm going to use a Williams peep sight for a while and then put on a scope ... maybe.

The 2100 is for fun but I may try taking a few rabbits around the garden and berry bushes with it. The 392 will be my main air gun for a while. No hurry. I have firearms to use when needed.

Most of the squirrels and rabbits I've taken have been within 30 yards and probably 25 yards. Back in grade school one of my buddies used to bring fried squirrel in his lunch some days. He had a pellet rifle and used to shoot quite a few in an unused patch of ground behind his house.

I used to be stealthy in the woods a few years ago. I need the practice. These guns will force me to work at close shots. I'm looking forward to it.

If it were easy they wouldn't call it hunting, they'd call it shopping.

Bullit · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:37:17 PM »

Again. Looking forward to your posts in the Hunting gate of your successes. G'Luck to Ya

DWSmith · « **Reply #28 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:42:10 PM »

Quote from: Bullit on June 24, 2015, 04:37:17 PM

Again. Looking forward to your posts in the Hunting gate of your successes. G'Luck to Ya

Thanks! I hope I have some successes to post.

DWSmith · « **Reply #29 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:50:21 PM »

Oops! How do I delete this?

LeadBreakfast · « **Reply #30 on:** June 24, 2015, 05:03:01 PM »

Good choice, you'll enjoy the 392 I am sure! Do the standard paint out of the barrel cleaning and lube frequently and it will last a long time!

DWSmith · « **Reply #31 on:** June 24, 2015, 05:11:43 PM »

Quote from: LeadBreakfast on June 24, 2015, 05:03:01 PM

Good choice, you'll enjoy the 392 I am sure! Do the standard paint out of the barrel cleaning and lube frequently and it will last a long time!

Thanks!

I have Q-Tips and acetone on standby and a tube of Crosman oil ready too.

DWSmith · « **Reply #32 on:** June 24, 2015, 06:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Meann-Machine on June 24, 2015, 03:34:06 PM

Dan,
Two weeks ago I went to my buddy's and shot for the afternoon. I'm estimating I sent roughly 125 rounds down range through my Theoben. We were shooting at empty .22 casings and shotgun primers at 32 yards and 50 cent piece spinners at 50+ yards. I could not have done that with a pumper. That type of practice is directly translatable to the field. A few years ago, I spent much more time in the early fall-winter shooting offhand, I estimate roughly 1500 rounds. Deer hunting in the late, late season in southern Iowa, where you can use a rifle, I shot a deer standing, offhand, with open sights, using a Marlin lever action 35 Remington brush gun through the heart and both lungs. The measured distance was 320 yards. I attribute that shot to the countless hours of air rifle shooting in the months before. That type of practice is just something a pumper can't offer you.

That's some impressive shooting but I've never been able to get a squirrel or rabbit to hold still like those targets you were shooting.

Bullit · « **Reply #33 on:** June 24, 2015, 06:33:36 PM »

DWSMITH,
How far do you expect a 392 or the 2100 to hunt? You have only 8fpe muzzle force (at most outta the box), to work with. Kinda curious about this.

DWSmith · « **Reply #34 on:** June 24, 2015, 06:55:44 PM »

I'd try a 20 yard shot and maybe 25 (or 30?) yards. Are you saying the 392 won't have 4+ fpe at 20 yards? The R9 only sends a .22 cal pellet 55 fps faster than the 392 according to manufacturers' claims and after taking into account exaggeration and assuming it was proportional it would probably be more like a 50 fps difference or less.

The specifications on the 392 say it's for small game hunting/plinking and there are plenty of guys at GTA who claim to have taken small game (squirrels and rabbits) with it.

At what distance can the R9 take a squirrel or rabbit?

The 2100 is for my son and grandson to use for plinking but I may try to pop a rabbit in the garden from around 10 yards if I hide behind the chicken coop.

anuthabubba · « **Reply #35 on:** June 24, 2015, 07:10:23 PM »

A 392 will have a muzzle energy of ~14 footpounds. I have taken nutria with single headshots at 35 to 50 lasered yards with Vintage Sheridans doing ~13FPE and ~10fpe from a 397!

DWSmith · « **Reply #36 on:** June 24, 2015, 07:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Yrok on June 24, 2015, 07:10:23 PM

A 392 will have a muzzle energy of ~14 footpounds. I have taken nutria with single headshots at 35 to 50 lasered yards with Vintage Sheridans doing ~13FPE and ~10fpe from a 397!

Thanks Terry!

Bullit, I now plan to take longer shots as soon as I put a scope on it. Should be plenty of power for squirrels and rabbits.

Bullit · « **Reply #37 on:** June 24, 2015, 07:56:44 PM »

Depends how good the compression is on the rifle you receive...as to the muzzle fpe you get. Use the advertised velocities as a "Best Schenario" guideline. Members will echo this sentiment as well. The factory will ship any mass produced budget rifle, if it's within 70percent of maximum advertised velocity. We all still scratch our heads as to what pellets that they use for their Chrony Tests... They won't tell us... LOL

The 392 has been around for a long time. So naturally it's a successful design. We all know that. To claim high FPE from this (of any pneumatic rifle) is something that only a Chrony test can tell you for your specific rifle. Yeah...the specs are stating high output, but truly it is very subjective. It depends on what pellet you use.
Hey! I hope you get a "gem", outta the box.

I personally am not a big fan of the multi-pumpers because of the time they take cocking and loading. Yes, the R9 (or variants) have plenty of power. Springers are quieter by nature in muzzle report, than pneumatic or Co2 powerplants...within similar powerclasses.
You never address that the 392 has a 5lb Trigger. To me, a big concern. Maybe not so much with you. To me, a trigger that is over 2-3 lbs of pull effort to break it, is a big question for reliable accuracy.
Again... I hope you get a Gem, and you have much success with it. Post your Harvests!

DWSmith · « **Reply #38 on:** June 24, 2015, 09:56:29 PM »

Everything has pluses and minuses. Pumpers have less recoil while springers have 2 recoils for each shot. Pumpers aren't as finicky about how they're held while shooting as the springers are. One gun costs more and another gun costs less. Sometimes you get what you paid for and sometimes you don't get what you paid for. And on and on and on.

The 392 seems built for hunting while the Beeman, RWS, etc. are made for killing paper very accurately that people have adopted for hunting.

If the same pellet exits 2 different rifle barrels at the same speed it doesn't matter how good the compression is, they'll both have the same fpe. What matters is shot placement.

I'll have fun with my 392 and I'm sure I would have fun with an R9. I almost bought an R9. Perhaps that will be my 3rd air rifle.

Life is good. Cheers!

bmb · « **Reply #39 on:** June 24, 2015, 10:22:05 PM »

Dan,

Two guns. Awesome. They both should give you a lifetime of fun if taken care of. And fun is what it's all about for me. Hopefully both are great shooters. The 392 should be an excellent hunting gun. I think its trigger will be much easier to master and /or improve than the recoil of a springer. If not, get a springer next. I shot three different ones last night "from $50-$350" and had fun with them all.

At least you finally moved forward with something. If there was that one perfect gun we would all save a lot of money. And, I would know what to get next. It seems every time a gun is recommended it is followed by the suggested upgrades. Seems kind of ironic. Why do we recommend and buy high dollar guns that we know should have been built better/different?

Maybe I just need to experiment with the dark side, or a ssp, or co2, or.....

Thank you to our advertisers!

Hunting rifle selection - round #2.

Author Topic: Hunting rifle selection - round #2. (Read 19141 times))