GTA
General Discussion To Gateway To Airguns => Hunting Gate => : PBJ March 07, 2007, 03:47:11 AM
-
-----Anyone interested in a real life hunting test program where we pick four or five pellets that we all shoot and test them at various distances for penetration, knockdown energy and accuracy? I think we all have some doubts and issues as to what is really happening with our guns. especially if we do not own a chrony.
----For pellets I would suggest Gamo Hunters, RWS Super Domes, Predators, Gamo Tomahawks, and perhaps Crossman Premiers. As we all have been told not to shoot the heavies or risk a damaged spring, we could stay in the normal weight range for .177
----For accuracy we could post our three shot groups including a "cold" first shot as that is all I ever get at any game, they don't' hang around for spotters and 5 or ten shot groups in the field.
----For penetration we might either use ballistic Jello (every store sells Jello) or something easier like layers of cardboard to a thickness that stops the pellet. We all can find cardboard.
----For knockdown, we could use angle iron cut offs (bit of homework here first) or good old Home Depot 2x4 blocks on end with a target circle in the top 1/3 of the bock. They either fall over or the don't (NRA Silhouettes don't lie). We could change the width of the angle iron or its basic size to get to a good test weight and the same with wood blocks.
----For distances we might just use three distances, 20/30/40 yards as 10 yards is a shoe in for most guns and 40 yards is starting to stretch what I call fair hunting distance. If we have time, we could add the 10 and 50 yard numbers or split the 20-40 numbers and shoot at 25/35/45 yards.
----If someone only wanted to do one test, that would still be good info.
----If the results listed the gun we are using and if we have its FPS, that might help some new shooters decide on a new gun purchase.
----I would be able to try out some angle iron as we have a shop at church and the construction crew would cut them for me form scrap stock we have from past projects.
----Post your ideas and lets see if there is some interest in this!!
Bob
-
Ive been thinking about doing this for awhile now.. Thanks for compileing a list of things to remeber and do.
I say jello as the best ballistic medium and to more closely replicate tissue.
-
Sounds like an interesting test that could, like you mentioned, yield some very interesting and useful information. If we get enough interest in it I think it could be do-able :)
Jeff
-
Let's see, you want perform a field hunting test. Testing penetration, which in "real life hunting" involves penetrating bone at times and for me " head shot's." Knockdown energy, this would have to apply to target's for me since I want the energy of my pellet to carry into or through the game. I want my pellet to cause internal damage, shattered bone's etc.. Shot placement, the key to it all and my favorite. We should focus on this for without it the other may be null and void.Sound's like it could be some interesting fun.
-
WELL!!!!....:)
I don't mean to pee on the pie here but I have some issues with this Bob..:) First thing is: If I was real new to airguns and saw the results, I may tend look at the results in a different light than all of us seasoned boys...:) Each of us have a different idea of what kind of air gun we want and buy, and what we want to use it for, because we all have gone through the trial and error of buying airguns. Example: When I was new to all this I wanted an springer air rifle that shot 1200 FPS.. LOL The closets I got was the Gamo 1250 Hunter. I was disapointed because of the bulkiness and weight of the gun...:) It was not till after a dozen air rifles did I know what I realy wanted and what I wanted to do with the air rifle.. :) I like to shoot alot of paper and the 1250 is made for hunting and not paper... hehe Now on the other hand the CFX, Shadows, work great for both paper and small game. The R-9 and other higher end springers are great for hunting and paper as well. The big RWS 350 is made for hunting and not for mostly paper punching. I could go on and on.. hehe .. I tend to do that you know.. hehe
I would like to make a suggestion. Lets put these results in catagories. By Brand, by caliber etc. and maybe our own opinion on what we personally think the gun is best used for with what ammo etc etc. I don't mean to make this complicated but for our newbies, it may shed more lite on what they may choose for what they want to do with it..:) I know I am nuts but CDT made me this way.. hehe
Gene
-
You know gene I was thinking whne you said categories.. maybe we could have another header (like when you did the shop) we could have a ballistics part of the forum. :) sounds funnnnn I know atleast a few of us have chrony's so it could be interesting on the findings.
-
I think Gene's got a good point here. I think the testing needs to be in 3 categories.
Category 1 would be pure target guns, my IZH 61 is a perfect example. Very accurate at 10 yards, but only about 500 fps.
Cat 2 would be the majority of our guns. These would be the mid-range guns, the Shadows, CFX's, RWS 34, or R9. Accurate enough for serious target work, but powerful enough for hunting smaller game (unless you're Jeff or Ed, then you can use a B26-2 for elephant hunting :-)!) out to maybe 50 yards. These are the guns typically advertised at 1000 fps in .177, most probably get around 15 fpe.
Cat 3 would be magnum springers and probably most of the PCP's. RWS 350, Gamo 1250, etc., these are the guns that produce the same velocity in .22 that the rest of us get in .177. These are the hunters, with power in excess of 20 fpe. I know, Gene, in the case of your Sumatra, WAY in excess of 20 fpe!
Obviously there will be some cross over. For instance, where do you put the dedicated FT gun?
All that said, I like the idea of some real world testing. If it gets off the ground, I volunteer to do the data crunching and compiling. I'd also like to see the results compiled by brand/model, and sent the info to the various manufacturers. Info like this might get them to pull their heads out of their butts, and give us numbers that are meaningful, instead of trying to convince us you can hunt wild boar with magic BB's! Now do you see what I meant about that right mind thing, Gene?
Dave
-
What's this in the pie hehe. Sound's like a good idea Gene, catagories for gun's ammo etc.We dont want anyone new to airgun's buying one and expecting to take down a charging water buffalo at 50yrd's hehe. Ed
-
-----Too bad we cannot meet once a week for a cup or twenty of coffee at a local dive and hang out, the forum is a good way to meet folks and see things through other peoples eyes. Just a recap of what I read in the way of replies:
#1 - Most of us do not hunt with a 500FPS gun nor do we own a .22 PCP. I want a PCP but the wife is already questioning how many more toys I need. I think that most new shooters would be best off with a 500FPS gun for targets and a 800-900FPS gun for hunting small game. Target shooting is only about cutting clean holes (if we are not into Field Target) and the literature and information on precision airguns is more than adequate and available. So that leaves hunting, either you got the big boy toys or you shoot with the guys with $300-$400 for a gun, scope and tune and that means most of us I would guess.
#2 - I have 24 different pellets and think I could have saved some money by having a better idea of where to go when I started. Accuracy is always going to be the most important factor of all and so I would rate the need for tests as follows:
====1st shot, second and third shot accuracy at varying distances
====some gauge as to how the pellet handles fur, feathers, flesh and bone plus will it dump all its energy in the game
====possible need for exit holes but below 30 caliber I am not sure of this as most game I have shot has not bled from the exit hole
-----So why don't we start with how well our favorite hunting guns shoot at various distances with several kinds of hunting pellets? it is not the size of the group that matters so much as the relative group sizes between different pellets at different ranges. If I shoot most all pellets out of my CFX into 5" groups at 50 yards, then at that distance my CFX is not partial to any particular pellet and I need to practice some more. I think we will find that some guns do not do well at yardages over 35 or so and most pellets are more accurate than the shooter but only testing by different folks will tell.
====thanks for taking the time to post your answers, I know that the GTA is a good thing for me and I pray it is for you all also!!
Bob
-
I think maybe you may be on to something here Bob... :) Looks like there are two serious takers so far..:) Dave and Jason puttin some ideas here. Yes and it would be neat if we could set this all up. Maybe someone could make up a outline of the things we want to test. Dave has volunteered to do the number crunching. Looks to me like this all could be very rewarding and fun while we are doing it.. :)
We could take the final data and post it in our Library for all to view. I will do all the conversions into PDF, HTML, Word, etc, so everyone can download it and print it out.. I am gettin dizzy here.. Yikesssssssssss
Gene
-
We would have to put together a list of gun's which would be used, Gamo, Chinese etc.. A list of pellet's, hunting and or target. I think if we got enough member's involved, we could cover Gun make/ model and pellet selection.This way most of the bases are covered since most don't own every make/model of gun though Gene and Bob may be close hehe. Member's involved would agree on the choices of each. Moving forward we are. Ed
-
Sounds like we may be rolling. Give me a couple of days to put together a "fill in the blanks" form so we can standardize the data collection. Only thing I don't quite know how to put on a form: "some gauge as to how the pellet handles fur, feathers, flesh and bone plus will it dump all its energy in the game". Jeff & Ed, you two are the most dedicated hunters, any suggestions for a consistent simulation? No, the neighbors cat will only work once, Ed, try again :-)! Not that I have anything against shooting cats, especially when they use my porch and garden for a litter box! Relax, guys, no kitty Boot Hill in my back yard, but I have thought about it! But I digress.
Bob, I think you've come up with something here that could prove to be very useful, as well as imformative. Gotta love the GTA! Later.
Dave
-
Bob, I like your idea, but for a slightly different reason. I hunt but generally only with powder burners as air gun hunting is not technically legal where I live. They can be used for pest and non-game critters under certain conditions, but unfortunately the pest I have around my place require something bigger (cougars, bobcats, coyotes, coons, opossums, etc). Some say we have wolves, but I haven't seen any and really doubt it.
I am interested; however, in the accuracy and velocity department of different guns. I am intrigued by the "real" velocities that air guns provide as well as how accurate owners find them to be (including pellets etc.). For example, I've got some cheap guns that out shoot more expensive guns and I find that interesting. I think there are a bunch of what I call air gun snobs, that think if you don't have a $600, big name gun, you are whistling in the wind. That has not been my experience, but it is hard to find information on this as these folks tend to only want to talk about their fancy guns and put everything else down. Like I said, I have some of each and I don't buy the story that you must have an expensive gun to get excellent performance. Straight Shooters has some information on quite a few guns on their website but there are many that are not listed.
I think this kind of information could be very valuable to new shooters if presented the right way and yeah, when I decided to get serious about air guns, I was one of those guys that started off with the RWS 350 because I thought air guns would be like powder burners and higher velocity meant flatter trajectories and therefore greater accuracy. I had zero "factual" information and it cost me a few bucks (trial and error) to find out the "real" story.
I have a crony and can provide information on about 10 air rifles and even some pistols if anyone is interested. Things are pretty busy right now at the Rocking 44, but I can always find some time for shooting!
Regards,
Jim
-
Offhand I can't think of anything right now to use for a consistent simulation for the fur/feather/flesh/bone category, but I will dwell on it,,,,, there's gotta be something good to use that would be readily available to everyone participating.
Jeff
-
Some say that a "sopping wet" telephone book is a fair simulation. I have no idea if that is true or not. They take off the covers and count the pages for penetration. It might not be ideal, but it should yield fairly consistent (comparable) results.
Regards,
Jim
-
Sounds like a good possibility Jim, good idea. Certainly is something available to everyone and counting the pages of penetration is an easy, consistent manner of documenting the results. I think we should definitely put that on the list of options. Lets see how the others feel about it.
Jeff
-
Some test are done using swine carcases since they simulate flesh,muscle and bone of some test done. But I realize that we all dont have a side of pork hanging in our shop's hehe. My dad's got some out on his farm but I dont think that he would let me perform these test on em hehe. I also have friend who work's in a meat department hmmm. Save your dinner bone's, pour your jello mold's and insert the bones just before it set's up.? Just throwing out some idea's. Ed
-
There's alway "roadkill" :)
It's free, usually in good supply, your actually doing the public a service by removing it from the roadways and it's the "real thing". :)
I know, I know,,,,,, but I'm just throwing it out there :)
Jeff
-
...
-
I think that if we did a jello test that it would be a best case senario to the pellet performance. With adding bones I think it would be a cool factor to say it blew through it. but its to inconsistant of a variable and not really repeteable. And also I dont know about eeryone else but im shure after jeff makes his kills he still has the fur laying around? Maybe you could lay that over the entrance to the gel to get sumwhat of a simulation of it punching through the fur/hide.
Jason
-
how about multiple tests (ie Gamo 440 with tomahawk shot into electrician putty and quarter inch plywood) now this does not simulate flesh or bone but we can gauge the successes from the failures.
-
How about a leather work glove ( like the brand Mule) with a bar of soap in it. Maybe also wrapped in a rag.
Glenn
-
You know I was thinking in the same manner. I got some deer leather and was thinking of trying it for a outer skin. Ed
-
http://home.hiwaay.net/~ispellan/PelletTest02.html
Jeff posted this link on the Air Gun Gate, but I think this would be a nice, consistent way to do penetration testing. I think Duct Seal is cheaper than plumbers putty, and a little stiffer. Not a true flesh sim, but at least we could all have a consistent ballistic medium, without having to cook it up ourselves. Not sure what to do about the "fur and feathers" part. I'm not a hunter, so I gotta ask, just how tough is a critters hide? I know the hunters talk about tough skinned game, but is it really that, or just some critters have a much stronger will to live? For simulating a head (skull bone) shot, I think the above with a THIN (1/8") something in front would be reasonable. I'm thinking door skin or Masonite, the stuff peg board's made of. Readily available, not too expensive, and should be pretty consistent across the country. Let me know what you think.
Dave
-
Thanks for the link Dave. :-) It was cool to see what happens to the pellet after impact.
-
Hey Dave,
Squirrels are the "toughest" skinned small game in my neck of the woods. Their hide really is pretty tough. A pellet, .22 or .177, can and does of course penetrate it but it's definitely tough. A rabbit on the other hand is just the opposite. Their skin is very soft, probably one of the easiest small game animals to skin for the same reason. The only other animal I can think of that is really pretty tough skinned, small game wise, is a woodchuck.
As for a material that could be placed in front of the putty to simulate skin I had a thought,,,, how about one of those "chamois" cloths (don't know if I spelled that right) ? You know,,, one of those thin leather like sheets that you use to wipe the residual water off your car after you wash it so you don't have water bead marks or streaks on your car? They are available at any auto parts store or Walmart, etc. They would be easy to place and secure in front of, or over, the putty you're shooting into, and they are relatively cheap. Not quite sure how such a material would hold up to repeated shots, but it might work.
I don't know, it was just a thought, what do ya think?
Jeff
-
This thread will probably grab the attention of our government.
"Hey boys, these air rifle guys are trying to simulate what happens when you shoot a pellet into a poor forest creature."
"So.."
"Maybe we should hijack their data and submit it as our findings. Save us allot of time."
"Cool. Can I be home by dinner?"
-
oops..
-
So they really are tough, not just tenacious. Good to know. Oddly enough, there are very few grey squirrels around here. Mostly we have the smaller Douglas squirrel, usually red, sometimes black, and the much smaller Golden Mantled ground squirrel, usually misidentified as chipmunks. The latter get thick as flies at times.
Sounds like the chamois would be a good option. It's actually the skin of a small mountain goat type critter, so it is leather rather than leather like :-)! Geez, you'd think I was teaching a course in natural history or something. They do have synthetic chamois, I think we'd want the real thing. Sounds like we're almost there. Later.
Dave