.177 hunting

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

[longislandhunter]

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!  : )

[daved]

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

[daved]

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

[ribbonstone]

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