GTA
General Discussion To Gateway To Airguns => Hunting Gate => : August 24, 2006, 03:48:39 AM
-
Hey all. Well, looks like the Crosman/Mendoza RM577 is headed for the scrap heap as there seems to be either a broken spring, bad seal, or both and CDT says parts are not offered. So.........considering the RWS Diana 34. I'd love the 52, but the checkbook wins out this time.
I've just been plinking but would like to hunt some with the gun. My own accuracy not involved, what do most of you feel is the effective range for different game using this power of rifle in .177?
thanks
-
If you're interested in using it for small game hunting why not just get the 34 in .22 caliber? If you haven't already,,,,, check out Midsouth Shooters Supply, they have the 34 (.177 or .22) for $167.00
http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=000622166165
I have hunted with my .177 rifles, and have done well, but to be honest I'd much rather use one of my .22 cal rifles for small game hunting, just seems to dispatch game more efficiently in my opinion. As for range,,, of course it depends on what animal you're shooting, but for rabbits, squirrels, quail, pheasant, pigeons, I feel confident shooting 40-50 yards. Others may have a different opinion but that range works for me. Good luck with your new 34 when you get it.
-
Of course you do have other options, but it sounds like you like RWS stuff.
Depending on where you are in the fit/finish/quality debate, you could go for an R7 ($285) which is not the greatest hunting rifle, but surely could do small game.
If you're attracted to the RWS stuff, the Beeman stuff should be worth a look.
-
Before the RM577 took a dump I was going to get the 34 in .22. As it is, I'll have no rifle until I get something. I agree with the .22 perspective when it comes to hunting, but right now I need something that will do both, thus the 34 in .177. It has the added benefit in using the $35.00 or so I have invested in assorted .177 pellets.
I'll almost certainly get a .22 in the future, however.
BTW, main quarry is pigeon and a lot of times those are in or near barns and the lighter damage caused by the .177 may be a plus.
longislandhunter - 8/24/2006 11:14 AM
If you're interested in using it for small game hunting why not just get the 34 in .22 caliber? If you haven't already,,,,, check out Midsouth Shooters Supply, they have the 34 (.177 or .22) for $167.00
http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=000622166165
I have hunted with my .177 rifles, and have done well, but to be honest I'd much rather use one of my .22 cal rifles for small game hunting, just seems to dispatch game more efficiently in my opinion. As for range,,, of course it depends on what animal you're shooting, but for rabbits, squirrels, quail, pheasant, pigeons, I feel confident shooting 40-50 yards. Others may have a different opinion but that range works for me. Good luck with your new 34 when you get it.
-
With that small a target, accuracy is more important than power.
I would strongly look at something like an R7.
(yes I know I am repeating myself and yes it is more expensive, but still cheaper than a 52)
-
josjor - 8/24/2006 8:48 AM
Hey all. Well, looks like the Crosman/Mendoza RM577 is headed for the scrap heap as there seems to be either a broken spring, bad seal, or both and CDT says parts are not offered. So.........considering the RWS Diana 34. I'd love the 52, but the checkbook wins out this time.
I've just been plinking but would like to hunt some with the gun. My own accuracy not involved, what do most of you feel is the effective range for different game using this power of rifle in .177?
thanks
Josjor:
You can't take your own accuracy out of the equation, because that is the limiting factor with respect to range-to-target when hunting with .177, or any other caliber of airgun for that matter.
However, if you are shooting dome-head pellets of 7.9-8.0 grains in weight with ballistic coeffecients of .024 or higher out of a gun capable of putting out 14-15 ft/lbs of power at the muzzle, you'll still have over 9 ft/lbs of energy at 50 yards. That is plenty to ruin a jackrabbit's day. I shoot chukar partridges in season with a .177 R-9 running at 15 ft/lb and it'll give complete, through and through penetration out to 50 yards. These birds are about the same size, weight, and build of a "rock dove" or common "pooper pigeon."
I wouldn't even consider a 34/36 in .22, as the velocity is so low compared to .177.
The key to effective hunting with .177, aside from shot placement, is paying attention to pellet selection and using pellets that carry the most velocity and energy downrange. In other words, you want the pellets with the highest ballistic coeffecient.
The all-time champ on that score is the Crosman Copperhead Pointed 7.9 grain with a BC of .028 in most mid-magnum rifles. Crosman Premiers in 7.9 and 10.5 will also typically yield a BC over .025 in most guns. Kodiaks are typically .026-.027 or so. JSB Exacts will usually be over .022 BC.
These will be the flattest flying, hardest-hitting pellets because they carry velocity well. By contrast, a pellet like an H&N Wadcutter might have a BC around .009 or so. Because of this, it'll shed velocity quickly and at 50 yards will hit with about 3 or 4 ft/lbs when fired from a 12 to 15 ft/lb gun.
BC is a little-understood and often dismissed aspect of exterior ballistics in the airgun community, but I think it is vital in airgun hunting.
Given the choice between .22 and .177 in a mid-magnum springer for hunting use, I'll take .177 firing high BC domed pellets, every time, as long as that choice is legal.
Consider that a gun shooting .177 Copperhead Pointed at 855-860 ft/s will have a maximum point blank range that is right about 50 yards, assuming a 1" kill zone. That same gun in .22 firing 14.3 grain pellets will normally be shooting them in the 625-675 ft/s velocity range, and will yeild a maximum point blank range of less than 40 yards, even if you can find pellets with the same .028 BC to shoot out of it.
So, from a given mid-magnum spring-piston powerplant, .177 doesn't just shoot A LITTLE flatter than .22, it shoots A LOT flatter with pellets of high BC.
Also, because velocity gets squared in energy calculation while projectile wieght doesn't, it is entirely possible for a .177 version of a particular rifle to deliver more ft/lb at 50 yards than its larger caliber counterpart will.
While I prefer .20 for general use, the fact of the matter is that I can kill all the rabbits, quail, squirrels, and chukar the law allows with a mid-magnum springer in .177 out to 50 yards, too. If .20 wasn't an option, .177 would be my main caliber.
-JP
http://www.uplandhunter.net
-
Everyone has a different opinion, and all have to be carefully considered. Here's mine, if you're into the 34 and want to save some ca$h call here http://www.ruagammotecusa.com/contact.cfm ext. 17 ask to buy the demo I was told $129. OR you could buy a RWS 94 it's one of the few guns that actually comes close to the rated FPS. Mine does avg 970 with rws superdomes and you can get the gun for $159 http://sunshineairguns.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=90&osCsid=696ae20715072962e3c870983b5fce36 When your done with the .177 phase order a .22 barrel and pivot block (they are sold as one) for $40. or re-barrel it to .20cal
Can you guys tell I like the RWS 94? LOL
Bart
-
One of the reasons for the 34 choice is that I got the Mendoza from Cabela's and am fairly certain that I can get them to accept it as a return (I've only had it 30 days and it really hasn't shot right the whole time) and one of the few higher quality springers they carry is the RWS line. The 94 is a special order whereas the 34 is kept in stock at the Sidney, NE store that I go to.
Thanks for the long explanation, JP. My comment "my own accuracy not involved" was not a statement that implied that I don't know that my accuracy isn't important. What I was asking about was the ballistic characteristics that would effect the reasonable range to humanely hunt with the .177 at roughly 850fps at the muzzle. The ballistics (giving proper pellet choice) don't change. My accuracy, through practice, can change. i.e. I can do something about my accuracy, I can't do much about Newton's laws.
That said, JP, your analysis of the ballistics was very informative and thanks.
-
I don't think there's any question than an RWS 34 in .177 can take out small game, especially if you're just going after pigeons.
The real issue is, is it the gun you want and is it best suited for the type of hunting you are going to do.
-
josjor:
In retrospect, my response was perhaps poorly worded. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. What I meant to get across was that middle-magnum spring-piston air rifles like the RWS 34 in .177 can shoot flat enough to 50 yards and hit hard enough at that that range that in most small game situations, it ain't "the bow, or the arrow, but the Indian" behind them that is the limiting factor.
It wasn't meant to be an affront to your shooting ability or intellect, but I can see how it certainly could come across that way.
-JP
http://www.uplandhunter.net
-
No offense taken at all, JP. I just wanted to make it clear that I know my accuracy has a LOT to do with my success whether I'm hunting game or the bullseye. I probably worded the question wrong. Its kind of like the fact that I could take a twelve guage shotgun and if I'm accurate, I can hit a goose at 140 yards......but it wouldn't be a humane kill...probably just p*&s the goose off really. That's where balistics play as much or more of a role than my accuracy.
In the end, you answered my question very well......even if the math is way above my head! : )
-
Hey, Bob,
Why are you only considering RWS rifles? I'd love a 52 myself, or even a 48. But like you, the check book won out. However, I ended up buying a Gamo CFX. Gotta tell you, I'm really happy with the choice. Yes, the trigger moderately sucks, but $30 gets you a GTX trigger from CDT, and the difference defies description. I know if you shop around, you can find one for about $180, don't know how that compares to the 34. Anyway, just a thought. Good luck, and keep shooting.
Dave
-
JP,
This might be a stupid distinction, but you stress BC a lot. I assume you really mean, shoot the highest BC pellet that your particular rifle will shoot accurately. I only make it because, even though pointed pellets may have a higher BC, my CFX absolutely hates them. Even at 20 to 30 yards, I'm lucky to keep them on the paper at all. Probably the best all around pellet in my rifle so far is the JSB Exact at 8.3 (?) gr. and .021 BC. Interestingly enough, the RWS Superdome weighs and looks the same, but the BC is only .014. And, it doesn't shoot as well in my rifle. BTW, don't you have a CFX? What's your best pellet? I'd really like to know, I've tried lots of different pellets, but there's still ones I'd like to try. Beeman Silver Aces come to mind, as well as Kodiaks. I've skipped the Kodiaks because of weight, since my CFX doesn't seem to like heavies. But maybe BC is more important than weight in this case. What do you think? Any info would be much appreciated.\
Dave
-
Given a pellet with enough power to penetrate the critter in question, then it's a matter of having the shooter place the pellet so that it intersects viatal parts on it's trip through. Don't do that, and it makes little difference which caliber pellet inpacts. Given a powerful enough airgun for the job at hand, getting the pellet delivered to the right spot is key.
.177's will have more range limitations and are more dependent on finding a pellet that retains it's velocity well. High BC pellets also tend to be high penetration pellets...if it has the length/weight/point shape to penetrate air well, they tend to penetrate game well. Don't get caught up in only that; a nice fast high BC pellet that shoots less accurately isn't really going to help.
-------
Word about accuracy.
Better to do final testing at the range you expect for most of your hunting shots. Waht shoots best at 15yards may not be the best at 40yards. Seems like it should be proportional (40yards being twice the size of 20yard groups, etc.) but it just doesn't seem to work out that way.
-
daved - 8/25/2006 7:36 PM
JP,
This might be a stupid distinction, but you stress BC a lot. I assume you really mean, shoot the highest BC pellet that your particular rifle will shoot accurately. I only make it because, even though pointed pellets may have a higher BC, my CFX absolutely hates them. Even at 20 to 30 yards, I'm lucky to keep them on the paper at all. Probably the best all around pellet in my rifle so far is the JSB Exact at 8.3 (?) gr. and .021 BC. Interestingly enough, the RWS Superdome weighs and looks the same, but the BC is only .014. And, it doesn't shoot as well in my rifle. BTW, don't you have a CFX? What's your best pellet? I'd really like to know, I've tried lots of different pellets, but there's still ones I'd like to try. Beeman Silver Aces come to mind, as well as Kodiaks. I've skipped the Kodiaks because of weight, since my CFX doesn't seem to like heavies. But maybe BC is more important than weight in this case. What do you think? Any info would be much appreciated.\
Dave
Dave:
I stress ballistic coeffecient BC because that is the key to downrange velocity retention and thus downrange energy delivery.
For what it's worth, most of us involved with the uplandhunter.net project DO NOT always shoot the pellet that is the most accurate in our rifles. As long as they are accurate ENOUGH to make reliable hits on kill zones out to 50 yards, we will sacrafice precision for a higher BC, or a higher velocity, flatter trajectory, and reduced dwell time and flight time. Our ammo doesn't have to be more than adequately precise as we are hunters, rather than target shooters. If we can hit the KZ every time, that's good enough for us, and there is little advantage to a tighter group on the KZ, since we don't shoot groups on game.
Pointed pellets, by the way, may LOOK more aerodynamic than domed heads, but they aren't. In subsonic, "wasp waisted" diabolo airgun pellets, the domed head is the most aerodynamic shape. Consider the classic picture in one's mind of the shape that a raindrop assumes as is falls to earth -fairly blunt and round on the "nose" and tapering to rearward. Crosman Copperhead "Pointed" pellets may lead the BC race -in most mid-magnum springers they will- but they aren't really pointed like, say, an RWS Superpoint or Gamo pointed pellet is.
Pointed pellets aren't very accurate, as a rule, and the reason for this is the inherint difficulty in mainting a concentric relationship between the tip of the point and the pellet's centerline during manufacture. Points are also easily damaged during shipping and handling.
I do not own a CFX and to be frank, I probably never will, as I prefer the faster loading open breech of break barrels for hunting. The only use I could ever personally concieve for a fixed-barrel air rifle (aside from my Benji 397 that I use for terminal ballistics experiments) is Field Target comps, and if I ever decide to play that game, I'd be more likely to play it with a Feinwerkebau PCP made for that kind of competition.
I've got nothing against the CFX, so don't misconstrue my comments. It just ain't my Cup 'o Joe compared to the break-barrel Shadow or R-9.
For the game that I shoot, which is primarily quail, chukar partridge, and cottontail rabbits, BC is more important than weight is to me. To be more precise, I am more inclined to shoot Crosman Copperhead 7.9's than Kodiaks in a .177 rifle, because for me, the whole point of shooting .177 instead of .20 is to take advantage of the 50 yard point-blank range that I can get in a rifle in the Shadow / R-9 power class in that caliber. If I shoot heavier Kodiaks, even though they've got essentially the same BC (.027 v. .028 for the Copperheads) they don't leave the muzzle with the same high velocity, so they don't shoot as flat.
In fact, the trajectory I get with Kodiaks in my .177 R-9 isn't flatter enough to notice in the field than what I get with my .20 R-9 firing Beeman FTS and the .20 penetrates nearly as well but makes a larger-diamter hole. So instead of shooting Kodiaks in my .177 R-9 to gain a bit more momentum, I'd be more inclined to shoot the .20 which will give me an increase in momentum and wound channel volume at essentially the same velocity.
I know Gene is a fan of Superdomes, and plenty of other people are, too. I don't have much use for them, however, because of their low BC. They also don't shoot all that great in any of my rifles -particularly at the 50 yard line.
JP
http://www.uplandhunter.net
-
ribbonstone - 8/26/2006 7:18 AM
Given a pellet with enough power to penetrate the critter in question, then it's a matter of having the shooter place the pellet so that it intersects viatal parts on it's trip through. Don't do that, and it makes little difference which caliber pellet inpacts. Given a powerful enough airgun for the job at hand, getting the pellet delivered to the right spot is key.
.177's will have more range limitations and are more dependent on finding a pellet that retains it's velocity well. High BC pellets also tend to be high penetration pellets...if it has the length/weight/point shape to penetrate air well, they tend to penetrate game well. Don't get caught up in only that; a nice fast high BC pellet that shoots less accurately isn't really going to help.
-------
Word about accuracy.
Better to do final testing at the range you expect for most of your hunting shots. Waht shoots best at 15yards may not be the best at 40yards. Seems like it should be proportional (40yards being twice the size of 20yard groups, etc.) but it just doesn't seem to work out that way.
BC is a big part of having a pellet with enough power to penetrate the critter in question and in my view, that is where "power" in air rifles really matters -not in "shock value" but in the ability of the pellet to reach vitals and pierce them, thus taking them out of commission.
I disagree STRONGLY with the assertion that .177 will have more range limitations. In mid-magnum and magnum piston rifles of the same power, .177 will shoot flatter than the larger calibers will. Thus, it will have a longer point-blank range. That may not matter much if all of your shots are under 40 yards, but it can make a difference if you are shooting in the 40 to 50 yard range.
Nice, fast high BC pellets that shoot less accurately than another choice can indeed help, and help tremendeously.
Case in point: In my wife's Shadow, Kodiaks are among the most accurate pellets in terms of group size. They do not, however, shoot anywhere near as fast or flat as Copperheads do. While the Kodiaks are more accurate ON THE RANGE, in the field, the Copperheads are accurate enough out of her rifle to allow reliable hits to the KZ of a valley quail out to 50 yards. Those hits are also easier to make in the field, because range estimation is much less critical due to the extended point-blank range. Sure, if we shot 5 or 10 shot groups into quail at 40 yards, the Kodiaks in her gun would make the tightest ones. But we don't shoot 5 shots into a single quail. We shoot a single shot into a single quail.
Am I saying that accuracy doesn't matter? Of course not. But there really is such a thing in hunting as accurate enough -at least in the hunting that I do. And, in the hunting that I do, there are situations where more accuracy than enough isn't going to help as much as a flatter trajectory and more downrange thump will.
Where accuracy is concerned for me, I test for acceptable precision at 50 yards. A pellet that groups great at 15 might not do so slick at 50 and if BC is totally ignored, it probably won't. So far, the pellets that have been accurate enough at 50 yards for the shooting that I do have proved satisfactory for closer ranges, too. I don't test for the average scenario, as most of the game that I shoot with an air rifle is closer to 30 yards from my rifle than 50, most of the time. I test for the worst-case scenario at the maximum range that I am comfortable shooting small edible game at with an air rifle, and that's 50 yards.
It isn't just placement. It's placement AND penetration, and finding the ideal compromise that offers enough of each to get the job done in a quick, humane way.
JP
http://www.uplandhunter.net
-
Agree 100% on most of the items presented.
A pellet that groups well at 50yards has always grouped well at shorter ranges...but the reverse certainly isn't true. Test your hunting pellets at the ranges you expect to shoot. 40 or 50yards for most folks, but if using a lower powered rifle and will limit your shots to 25yrads, the test at that range....if your air rifle is a super-powered PCP, then might test at whatever you consider max. range.
Becasue of the design of airgun pellets, there are limitations in BC. Boattails work well at getting BC up for low vel. projectiles (and just becasue they are powered by air makes no difference), but being pellets, we can't work with that end...can only use length and nose shape, both of which tend to increase weight. Heavy weight pellets tend to a more arched trajectory, making range estimation more and more important.
That's where the .177's main advantage lies...it can shoot flatter, whih makes range estimation less crucial.
But vel. still rears it's ugly head...can't lose too much vel. with a heavier/better BC pellet and still maintain a trajectory advantage.
Quick estimations (someone can run them and get the last decimal place if they care to).
Toss a lower BC (something like .0150) pellet out at 950fps...zero it for 30yards...and at 50yards may be 2.2" low. Now a higher BC pellet (something like .0225) zeroed at 30uyards will be about 2.2" low when launched at something like 865fps. Agree, as range extends past that, the higher BC pellets shows more of an advantage, but for most of us 50yards is a good sensible hunting limit.
So in the above example, as long as going from .0150 to .0225 doesn't cost more than 85FPS, it helps at normal huntiing distances.
(Yah...can zero for 50yards on both, and deal with the differnce in height in the middle areas...and that has a good bit to do with the height of the scope over the bore. But that usually is more difficult for most of us...we hate holding under things.. The height of the scope over the bore has a good bit of control over all these trajectroy estimations...and as a group, air gunners seem to like big lens scopes jacketed up in the air, so the traditional 1.5" bore/scope distance doesn't apply).
-
Great posts, guys, lots of "things that make you go hmmm, I hadn't thought of that". The most obvious, of course, hunting is NOT target shooting. I think you zeroed in on the main thing that trips us newbies up- we get locked in to the target mind set of super tight 5 or 10 shot groups at X range, where hunting is (hopefully!) one shot, one kill. So thanks.
Dave
-
daved - 8/25/2006 8:21 PM
Hey, Bob,
Why are you only considering RWS rifles? I'd love a 52 myself, or even a 48. But like you, the check book won out. However, I ended up buying a Gamo CFX. Gotta tell you, I'm really happy with the choice. Yes, the trigger moderately sucks, but $30 gets you a GTX trigger from CDT, and the difference defies description. I know if you shop around, you can find one for about $180, don't know how that compares to the 34. Anyway, just a thought. Good luck, and keep shooting.
Dave
I'm a research nut.....and admittedly sometimes that causes more troubles than not. Anyway, in that research I found more negative reviews for the CFX than for the 34. Neither had a lot of negative feedback, but the 34 had less. That said, I did hold the CFX at Cabela's and it was comfy. I actually liked the length of pull slightly more than the RWS. I also like the factory sights on the CFX a smidge more than the 34, even though I plan on mounting my scope. But, alas, I am addicted to wood. Just some wierd cro-magnon man thing in me that has a hard time accepting synthetic stocks.
I just got back from the first short session with the 34 and really like it. It's my first real, non-defective, adult air rifle and I think that this may be the start of an addiction. So, you never know. There could yet be a CFX in my future. I can see where the weight advantage of that synthetic stock would be nice in the hunting field.
-
Guess I'll add a little fuel.
Most of my vermin control is at 20-25 yards...which happens to be the distance from my back door to the wooden fence just infront of the nearest pecan tree. Squirrels tend to love pecans...but also seem to love to gnaw on the garage roof flashing. ..and like to run along the top of the fence to get to and from whereever they are going.
My choice?
Single stroke pneumatic .177 match rifle...605fps at the muzzle...normally with 8gr. flat nosed pellets. Have taken the match apature sights off and put an older 6-18X Simmons on, usually kept at 6X for the field of view. Distance is right, accurracy is certainly right. Not an abundance of power, but being able to zip that pellet in exactly the right spot seems to do the job just fine (and quietly).
Don't die any deader when hit with a faster pellet gun or with a larger caliber one.
(In case you wonder. Are only a couple of spots along the fence where it is safe to shoot...places with tree trunks as back-up for a possible miss (or pellet that exits. Even out of season, when doing damage to property, are pests.)
-
Test
-
For most of us, we don't choose the pellet, the pellet chooses us.