Happy New Year, loathesome plague monkeys GRAPHIC

[daveshoot]

Fence patrol with the SS1000, CP HPs in hand. Sunny and nice today with a light westerly breeze.

Whoa, there is GS #1 out for a seed or two, at 60 paces.
Pop! 'Bout an inch high. Pop! Low left. Pop! Down.

Over scurries GS #2... "hey, what's up with the funny dance?"

Pop, down.

At 60 and 61, both achieved full penetration and 2008 is off with a bang. Or, at least a couple of pops. And two less plague carriers for the New Year.

[Big_Bill]

Good shootin Dave,

It looks like you and your SS1000, have started the year off with a Bang. :-)

I don't think that the Plague will be much of a problem in your neck of the woods !

Nice photo of your trophies and baby...

Happy New Year !!!!!

Bill

[shadow]

Yes great shootin Dave and they look very peaceful next to your proud sweetheart. Ed

[longislandhunter]

Like the others have said,,,, great shootin :)

Jeff

[Gene_SC]

Great shooting Dave, but those nutters look like they have been through hell and back...:)  Only there hair dresser knows....hehe

Gene

[daveshoot]

They are California ground squirrels, so they start out looking like hell. Plus, they lived in Fresno, but I will skip the obvious jokes.

This event caused me to ponder some weighty questions. Now that I have a chrony and Chairgun 2 I have been looking at things more closely.

The ground squirrel is an overpopulated, destructive, pathogenic pest, of which even the state of Kalifornia has basically sanctioned the wholesale slaughter. On the other hand, they are creatures just following their programming. While I am a remorseless killer of them, I looked at the terminal ballistics of this event.

With an MV of 900 and a 7.9 gr hollow point, I would have been a litte over 7.3 fpe at these ranges. The HPs went clean through both targets (pellets therefore not recovered). Neither were head shots, one being angled through the neck, the other in the heart/lung area. Neither was an instant kill. The neck-shot thrashed a few and was still; the second was instantly down and immobilized but dispatched at close range. I will freely admit I am not good enough to guarantee head shots at this range, but looked at it from the perspective of pest control, not humanity. Each of these would probably have borne 6-8 young in spring

Dr. Beeman says the .177 is not for hunting. Yet it certainly has enough retained energy to completely penetrate the squirrels. To get a .22 to retain this same energy at this distance, we would need an MV of 950 fps and there are not too many springers that do that. I know he would like me to use a .20 (sounds good), and that would need over 1100 fps at the muzzle. I would be interested in an affordable version of whatever does this, but the question remains, why is .177 not suitable under these circumstances?

It is certainly not about the size of the wound channel, since even a .177 would be the equivalent of a human getting penetrated by a 20mm. And once the round has gone clean through, there is nothing left for retained energy to achieve.

Under the circumstances, why is .177 such a poor choice?

The more inflammatory question is probably the ethics of launching 60  shots at all. One one hand, I would be leery of guaranteeing head shots at even 25 yds. Nor is the head shot necessarily the holy grail of ethical hunting... deer are routinely dispatched with heart/lung cavity shots. On the other, the likelihood of slow kills or wounding is definitely increased, as the kill zone stays the same size but the groups open up. This risk is present whenever the trigger is pulled, regardless of range.

I know the latter question brings out the holier than thou in many a shooter, but was interested in a more dispassionate response. My thought was that pest control has different rules than meat hunting (if they were true fox nutters, it would have been meat hunting).

Thinking too hard on back to work day!

[longislandhunter]

Hey Dave,

All my air rifles are for hunting, that's what I purchased them for and that's what they are used for, the .22's as well as the .177's.
I will freely admit that I personally prefer .22 cal for small game hunting, but I use my .177 guns all the time and cleanly take small game up to rabbit and squirrel size.  I follow follow 3 basic rules when I'm hunting,,,,, 1) I reduce the range to the target as much as possible and have a self imposed range limit of 30-40 depending on the conditions of the shot.  2) I only shoot if I have a clean, unobstructed shot  and 3) I always strive for a head shot if it's possible.
Following these rules I  hunt successfully with all my rifles, both calibers, and cleanly and humanely take game.  I'm not going to tell you that I never lose a game animal after it's hit because I have,,,, but those instances are few and far between.  I feel terrible when that happens, but I when it does I will spend whatever time it takes to try and locate the animal even if it means putting the rest of the hunt on hold and I also know that these instances will happen occasionally   when hunting,,,, it's just part of the sport.  


As for "pest control having different rules than meat hunting",,,,,, I disagree.  This is just my personal opinion and of course only applies to me,,,, but I feel I have a moral and ethical obligation when hunting to insure that the animal I am hunting is killed as quickly as possible and as humanely as possible and that I must do everything I can to insure that takes place,, whether I'm hunting a filthy barn rat or a rabbit.   Following this belief doesn't make pest hunting any harder or more difficult at all,,,,, I feel it just keeps me bound to a set of ethical rules to which I follow.  

Anyway,,,, just my opinion for what it's worth.   Enjoyed your post,,,,, good to think about these things from time to time,,, it's good for our "hunting soul"  :)

Jeff

longislandhunter - 1/2/2008  10:23 AM

...I follow follow 3 basic rules when I'm hunting,,,,, 1) I reduce the range to the target as much as possible and have a self imposed range limit of 30-40 depending on the conditions of the shot.  2) I only shoot if I have a clean, unobstructed shot  and 3) I always strive for a head shot if it's possible....Jeff

... and 4) it sure don't hurt to use Predators, ehh Jeff?

;~)

Bryan

[only1harry]

Dave,
I don't think Dr. Robert Beeman ever implied that .177 is not good for hunting, just that .20 or .22 (or even .25) is better.   I certainly don't think any of us here ever said that .117 should not be used for hunting.  A squirrel I think is ideal for hunting with .177 but I personally would not try and take a larger animal than that with .177 (like groundhog, racoon, etc.) only because of my experience and failures.  If I were 100% sure every time that I would hit my quarry in the head, then I 'd probably use .177 most of the time, but that's not realistic, so I use larger calibers in case I don't make that perfect head shot.  Hek there are people that have taken beaver, fox and other animals with .177 head shots, but the success rate with .22cal on larger small game or even squirrels & rabbits is greater than .177's.  

Here 's a good article that explains why:  It basically says that you have to shoot much more accurately with a .177 than with a .22 (or .25) which has a larger kill zone.  Therefore your success rate is lower with a .177 when compared to .20/.22/.25.  Hope this answers your question a little better than my rambling..
http://www.velocitypress.com/BeemanKodiak.shtml

Again, I find this article fairly accurate because it explains and validates a lot of my experiences when huting with .117 and .22.  I can relate to it.  Maybe others can't, but as far as I 'm concerned my "kill ratio" or 'quick kills' have increased considerably since I switched to .22 for hunting.  BTW, with the right gun, scope, and good shooting skills (knowing your gun well especially if it's a hold-sensitive springer like most are), you can hit a squirrel in the head or base of the skull (spine) well beyond 25yds.

[daveshoot]

Well written and reasoned responses, as I would expect here. There is probably no one right answer to the second question, other than minimizing the amount of suffering with whatever tools you have.

only1harry's link was very good (though I am not gonna buy a Kodiak) and there was an interesting ethical discussion along these lines in the article, "Killing as Sport". Very thoughtful.

As for .177, I guess what jumped out at me were two things: the high retained energy of this caliber (partly due to higher retained velocities, duh), and the flatter trajectory, comparing real world rifles. With range estimation being an estimate and all, a 3.3" holdover has a lot less margin of error than an 8+" and more energy when you connect. I don't think this forum or anyone in particular is anti-.177 but one does hear the sentiment over and over in airgun circles.

Another benefit of the Velocity Press link was reading more about the Predator rounds. I am definitely getting interested in those! And maybe I will institute a 40 yd limit for the varmints. I was personally challenged because I am readying the dreaded B26 (in .22) as a primary death ray and was chagrined at the Chairgun estimates of what to expect at the terminal end, compared to the .177.

Thank you for the responses.

[NMCA_Ron]

longislandhunter - 1/2/2008  9:23 AM



As for "pest control having different rules than meat hunting",,,,,, I disagree.  This is just my personal opinion and of course only applies to me,,,, but I feel I have a moral and ethical obligation when hunting to insure that the animal I am hunting is killed as quickly as possible and as humanely as possible and that I must do everything I can to insure that takes place,, whether I'm hunting a filthy barn rat or a rabbit.   Following this belief doesn't make pest hunting any harder or more difficult at all,,,,, I feel it just keeps me bound to a set of ethical rules to which I follow.  

Jeff

I feel pretty much the same way about this as Jeff with one added incentive to strive for a clean head shot even on vermin: Practice. The more you practice making head shots, the better you will become in the future on both vermin and game. Just my two cents.

Ron