An Air Gun Hunting Overview

A jack-rabbit is "big game" when using "air".
Air rifle hunting is in some ways like bow-hunting or even a little like fishing with ultra-light tackle.

Similar to bowhunting in that you need to get fairly close with most air rifles and many require you to cock or pump before you can shoot, somewhat like drawing a bow.

When doing ultra-light fishing you are more likely to get some action because there are usually many more small fish. When using an air gun you are hunting for more abundant small game and pest. If such hunting is too slow you can start sniping at insects for fun.

There are exceptions, some very specialized larger caliber air rifles, but that's not what this page is about. The more typical air guns, even the best, will not reliably take game much bigger than jack-rabbits.

Advertising claims using words like magnum power, high power, extreme power, and such are a little misleading. Those words are true only when comparing air guns to air guns, not when compared with firearms. Claims of pellet rifles shooting at speeds of 1200, even 1600 fps. (feet per. second) are often made.

You can "bet the farm," those claimed muzzle velocities were with very light weight pellets. Some .177 caliber pellets weigh as little as 5 grains, that is about 40% less than the weight of a typical 8 grain .177 pellet. Such light weight pellets will start out faster, but loose the speed advantage quickly. For air rifle hunting many experienced hunters prefer pellets of normal weight or heavier.

Velocities of the best guns with "normal weight" pellets will most often range from about 800 fps to around 1100 fps and most often nearer to the low end of this range in the larger calibers.

Although the advertised velocities may be a bit misleading; we can still use them as a rough guide to categorize air gun power. For simplicity I'm only talking only about .177 caliber guns here. If you choose the same gun in a larger caliber you will get slightly to considerably less velocity depending on the gun type.  Less velocity can make it a little harder to shoot accurately because of a more rapid pellet drop, but the larger or heavier pellets sometimes add a little more energy or killing power.

Mouse in Hay Barn

400-600 fps.  Low end guns will usually shoot pellets at these speeds. These can be basic cheap spring air, pneumatic, or CO2 powered guns, or they can be expensive and extremely accurate target rifles or pistols.

Most pellet handguns shoot in this range of speeds. Even such low power guns can be used at close range for pest birds, mice, rats, frogs, snakes, insects...


600-800 fps.  Many guns in this middle range are used for hunting; especially in Europe. Some places in Europe don't allow firearms and limit air guns to about this power level. Many spring-piston rifles, inexpensive pump-up pneumatics, and even a few CO2 powered rifles can reach these velocities. The pre-charged pneumatic handguns can also reach these speeds. Head shots on animals of rabbit size at 20-25 yards are reasonable targets.

800 fps.-up.  Many shooters in the USA are going to buy these guns which will be advertised to shoot at much higher speeds. These guns can extend the range, but not by a huge amount; pellets loose velocity and energy rapidly. No gun, no matter how powerful, gives us an excuse for careless shooting. An air gun hunter should be thinking precision head shots, not power. Scopes made for air guns are highly recommended. Note: Spring air guns have reverse recoil and will eventually wreck any scope not made for that reverse recoil.

Fox Squirrel

Accuracy is 'possibly' even more important when air rifle hunting. While some air guns are extremely accurate; not always under hunting conditions. Hunters can be shooting with wind, poor light, around limbs, leaves, grass, from awkward or unsteady positions...

Some guns have excessively heavy, rough, trigger pulls. Some of the guns, especially spring air guns, can shoot differently, depending upon how they are held. Even the heaviest pellets will get blown  around by the wind.

Air rifle hunting is fun, but sometimes challenging.

.17 HMR Rifle? Almost!

Taurus .22 Win Mag

Note: I originally wrote this for my website years before the .17 Winchester Super Mag.

When the .17 HMR cartridge was introduced a few years ago it renewed my interest in rimfire cartridges. This new rimfire cartridge would fire a .17 grain bullet at 2550 fps. almost as fast as my .22 Hornet centerfire.

At that time I had a TC Contender Carbine with a .22 Hornet barrel. I seldom hunted with it, but took it along in the truck when going to the farm. I liked having a varmint rifle with me. It was accurate, easy to shoot, but I was getting bored with it, and with reloading the ammunition for it.

When I originally bought the Contender it was a 10" barreled handgun chambered for the .22 long rifle. Some years later I changed it into the carbine by buying the carbine stock, and a 21" .223 barrel.

Next I decided I needed the Hornet barrel for some reason. I also had a 21" barrel in .410 shotgun and a barrel chambered for the 7-30 Waters which took a few deer. I could have simply added a .17 HMR rifle barrel for the Contender, but I was ready for a change.

My new big idea was that I would buy a large tool box to carry everything I wanted to take when going to the farm. I could simply grab that toolbox and go. I thought about a .17 HMR handgun for the toolbox. But handguns are difficult to shoot well, so I quickly switched back to thinking about a .17 HMR rifle.

The short little Taurus M62 take-down carbine caught my eye. Loosen one screw on the frame and this little carbine is two pieces about as long as a long barreled handgun. The M62 Taurus was a copy an old Winchester pump but available in .22 long rifle, .22 mag. and .17 HMR rifle or carbine.

The .17 HMR rifle ammo is noted for accuracy, but I knew the M62 would not be a best choice to utilize that accuracy. It's a top ejection pump action, not an especially accurate rifle, not a great trigger, and it doesn't readily take a scope. But I simply wanted one... I also wanted to try the tang mounted peep sight option.

A reason for taking a gun to the farm was that I sometimes see a coyote, bobcat, skunk... "But!" I reasoned a tiny 17 grain bullet at 2550 fps. is not a great coyote round, actually no rimfire is a great coyote round in my opinion.

The fast and accurate .17 HMR ammo would blow up a blackbird, a ground squirrel, a crow... But after thinking about it the cartridge didn't seem like a great choice for bigger pest.

There was another choice in the M62; the .22 magnum. Actually the HMR is based on the same brass. I never remember being excited about the .22 mag. not even when it was new. But I thought I should consider it. I started comparing the ballistics of the .17 HMR and the .22 WMR.

I remembered long ago the then new the .22 magnum ammo pushed a 40 grain bullet at 2000 fps. Now the charts now say only 1875 fps. Not the first time I've noticed an older cartridge loose some zip :-) Why? To help sell new cartridges and guns, maybe.

Anyway, 1875 fps. is close to half way between a High Velocity 40 grain bullet in the .22 long rifle, and the 17 grain bullet at 2550 fps from the HMR.

There are several .22 mag. loads at 2200 fps. with a 30 grain bullet which is almost twice the weight of the 17 grain HMR. There is one load with a 50 grain bullet, and one bird shot load. Still, I believe the standard 40 grain load is likely to be the best for most uses.

I quickly realized the old .22 magnum would probably be a little better coyote load, and more versatile than a .17 HMR rifle. I bought a stainless steel M62 Taurus carbine in .22 mag.

I've never shot a coyote with it, but it was devastating on the few critters I did shoot. I never really tested the accuracy. I believe the standard 40 grain bullet .22 WMR load is a better choice than the .17 HMR for bigger pest up to about 100 yards. I wouldn't suggest using either at greater distance.

I tried the shot shells for the .22 magnum and even took a couple of blackbirds flying at close range with the shot loads. I really liked the M62 and the .22 mag, but I have to laugh at myself sometimes; I had a case of "I want a new gun" I didn't 'need' the gun...

If I wanted a more serious rifle for smaller pest and a little longer range I would choose an accurate bolt-action or single shot with a scope in .17 HMR. For small game I think the .17 Mach 2 could possibly even beat the king of rimfires the .22 long rifle. But, "as it is", I doubt that the Mach 2 cartridge will last long.

IMO a low cost load is needed in both the .17s for plinking, it could then "beat" the .22 long rifle. It could even be an alternative to a pellet rifle. If Hornady, CCI, Federal... would make a simple lead bullet version of the .17s at around 1200 fps. (Don't hold your breath waiting for it!)

Note: The new .17 Winchester Super Mag has now changed the rimfire "game". This cartridge shoots a slightly heavier 20 grain bullet at a reported 3000 fps. If this cartridge has the accuracy of the other .17 calibers, it will likely be the new choice for many varmint hunters.

This new .17 rimfire should be deadly at considerable range for any small pest and more capable on larger critters such as coyotes. I often wondered if the .17 HMR would stand the test of time, but I never expected it to be "gunned down" by an even faster rimfire round.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Daisy Model 25 Memories

An add similar to this got my attention!

My first gun was a hard earned Daisy Model 25 BB gun. I can't remember if it cost $8, or if I was 8 years old; I think both. Probably the summer of 1955 and I would be 9 in November.

Me at age 8

I begged for the Daisy, Dad finally caved and said I could have it. If I cleaned out his 30 foot cattle trailer to earn it. I'll never forget that! A huge, nasty, job, and especially for an 8 year old kid.

I was neat and clean and liked to "keep my ducks in a row" as a young boy. I'm pretty sure Dad thought I'd not do the job and he wouldn't need to buy the gun. After a couple of hours work I was also thinking I'd never finish the job. But I kept working and thinking about that magnificent Daisy and what we could do together. It took most of two miserable days. I learned the value of a dollar. That gun, IT COST A LOT!

The Daisy Model 25 looked like a pump BB gun. I read somewhere that it was actually more popular for a few years than the better known lever action Daisy Red Rider. I personally learned that it would shoot harder. Mine model had rotating open and peep sights. With the peep I became fairly deadly within the guns very limited range. For a few years I felt like I was a step ahead of my cousins who had Daisy Red Riders.

Some of the shooting, I don't recommend:

• I learned that by standing directly under a high-line wire I only had to concentrate on left to right gun movement (windage); I could hit the wire about half the time. Not a great idea, but it made a cool sound when the BB hit the wire. PING!
• Jimmy (my cousin) borrowed my gun one day for some pay-back. He and his older brother Ronny both had Daisy Red Riders. Ronny had done something to make his shoot a little "harder". Ronny had also learned to stay just far enough away to hurt Jimmy, but not get hurt in their BB gun battles. When Jimmy borrowed my Model 25; it was Ronny who ended up dancing, yelling, and running for cover.
• One day, bored, and not in one of my smartest moments, I decided to shoot at my grandmother's concrete steps at short range. The BB came almost straight back and hit me in the forehead just above the eye. (Yea! You know what they say about BB guns and eyes.) It hurt, got my attention, and I learned something. 
• On another day a trick shooter came to our school. (Can you even imagine that happening today!) After seeing him strike a match using a twenty-two rifle, I spent the rest of that day after school trying to do it with a BB. I stuck a kitchen match between the boards at one end of my grandmother's old picnic table and rested the gun across the other end only about two feet from the match. After using most of a small pack of BB's and half a box of mom's kitchen matches; I finally did it!  

I was taught by the whole family not to shoot at songbirds, bottles, windows... I hunted almost every day. The Daisy and I were greatly feared by pest birds, lizards, snakes, frogs, insects... in the area.  I missed or didn't have enough gun for most of the shots, but it worked often enough to be great fun.

It was a simple, but very special, time. The gun was my constant companion until my twelfth summer. That summer I worked in the hay fields for an uncle and earned enough to buy a Browning twenty-two. The new gun was certainly an advancement, a step-up, but I'm not sure anything is better than being a young boy, free to roam with his imagination and his Daisy.

My impression of the "New" or reintroduced Daisy Model 25:
First I'll say that I'm better about passing up on things I don't really need today. But I "caved-in" and bought one of the new Model 25s for my two year old grandson. :-)

Don't count this as a review, only my first impressions, I've shot less than 100 BB's through the gun. Most important to me, this new gun felt very familiar in my hands, even  after being absent for more than half a century:

• Yes! It's made in China. 
• No safety on the original, but this new one has a simple trigger block, cross bolt safety. 
• The magazine tube has a different male screw-in adapter (I think it's easier to screw in.)
• Something which seems backwards to me: The new one has a wooden stock. Plastic was not that common in 1955, but I believe my old gun had a plastic stock.

I set up a Campbell Soup can (classic) at about twenty steps. I could hit it easily. The gun shoots harder than I remembered; it put solid dents in the can's thick metal. That hard shooting could be from "dieseling" there was some obvious factory oil and a little smoke when fired.

The trigger is numb, but better/lighter than I remembered, and the gun much easier to cock.

I'm not sure if this should be attributed to small changes to the gun, or more likely big changes in the shooter. I did pinch my hand when cocking it once. I smiled, thinking, maybe neither the gun nor I have changed too much.

Rimfire Scopes

A compact one inch scope seems appropriate on this small youth rifle.

The rimfire scopes and air rifle scopes are not too different from the centerfire scopes used for deer... If you choose the wrong scope it won't matter how good the quality or the brand-name you won't have the best.

What is different when choosing a rimfire scope?

• Small game and pest offer a smaller target. 
• Often they are at shorter range. 
• Rimfire rifles have very little recoil.
• Some air rifles have reverse recoil.
• You could want parallax correction. 
• The guns can be smaller and lighter.

A smaller target may suggest more magnification, but I caution you only slightly more magnification. Excessive magnification leads to more magnified movement, less field of view, shorter depth of field, less bright optics, and/or bigger scopes with bigger objective lenses.

If one magnification was offered most would suggest 4x. The 4x works for big game, small game, and most other uses. Sometimes it's a little too much for close up moving shots. Less often we need more magnification when we can't stalk any closer.  For small game the ranges are shorter, but the target is smaller so it often works out about the same. My point is that 4x is simple and most often it works fine.

The .22 long rifle is still the most popular rimfire. Small game and pest are usually shot at 50 yards or less. A 2-7x30 or 3-9x30 variable of decent quality makes sense. For small running targets at close range the 2x could be slightly better. For longer shots with good light and a solid rest the 9x could be slightly better.

The hot .17s, Winchester .17 Super Mag and .17 HMR have extended the rimfire's range. They offer a higher velocity, flatter trajectory (less bullet drop), and sometimes better accuracy. For all around shooting of small game and varmints with the hot .17's a 3-9x30 or 40 would be my choice. For more specialized small pest (ground squirrels maybe) and varmints at the max range a 4x12x40 could be in order.

Air rifles are still generally less capable than a rimfire. BUT! Good air gunners often get into precision shooting. Many enjoy plinking at very small targets, insects... While more typical air gunners use a 4x30 or 2-7x30. If your into precision shooting with a fine accurate gun you could want a 3-9x40PA or even 4-12x40AO. (I'll explain the PA & AO later.)

Recoil is not a problem with a rimfire and you can sometimes watch the bullet strike the target. Any good quality scope will not be affected by the recoil of a rimfire. Some air rifles however can require a scope made specifically for them.

Spring piston air rifles have reverse recoil. Don't put a fine quality $1000.00 scope on a spring piston air rifle. Even if it's designed for elephant rifles it may not be able to take the recoil from the opposite direction.  You need a scope designed for these air rifles.

Tube size:  Most scopes have a one inch tube diameter, but a few inexpensive air gun or rimfire models have smaller 3/4 or 7/8 inch tubes.  They work, but not very well.  I wouldn't recommend these cheap small tube scopes.

Scopes labeling: 4x30, 2-7x30, 3-9x40PA, 4-12x50AO... The first number indicates how much the image is magnified; for example a 4x will make the image appear 4 times larger. A 2-7x variable (zoom) can magnify the image 2 times or a ring can be turned to vary the magnification up to 7 times on that scope.

The x30, x40, x50 is the diameter of the objective lens bell or front lens of the scope. That objective lens size should be about 5 times the maximum magnification power of the scope. If the objective lens is less than five times the maximum magnification, it will work fine in strong light, but appear dark at dawn or dusk.

There is no serious advantage to such a big scope in normal light or at the low and middle zoom settings on a scope. Such big scopes can't be mounted low, they can look awkward especially on a smaller rifle, and they can unbalance smaller, lighter rifles.

PA or AO Sometimes the x40 or x50 is followed by the letters PA (Parallax Adjustable), or AO (Adjustable Objective Lens) which do the same thing.

To demonstrate parallax point your finger at an object across the room, close one eye, and then the other. You lined up the object using your dominant eye, and when you close the other eye, it's not lined up. This is a simple but dramatic example of parallax.

Rimfire scopes are set to be free of parallax at a typical rimfire use range (50 yds. maybe). Centerfire scopes at a longer but typical centerfire use range (maybe 150 yards). Both are compromises, but work fine for most use. Many hunters don't even know about parallax.

AO scopes allow you to adjust or focus for more precision shooting at the range of each shot. I've owned a few and my opinion is, "Most shooters shouldn't loose any sleep over parallax or having a PA scope."

If you get to be a precision air rifle shooter you may want one, but I've set mine for 20 yards, then forgot and used it on that setting for much longer shots, some I made, some I missed, the same as with no PA. Now I most often set it at a compromise range for the hunt and I often forget about it.

What else is needed in rimfire scopes; I believe very little. I like crosshairs which taper or step from thicker to thinner toward the center. The thick part is easier to see quickly, and the eye goes naturally to the central or fine aiming point which doesn't cover or hide too much of a small target. Most scopes now come with something like what I just described.

$ Money: I do believe money can buy quality up to a point, after that it only buys some possible prestige in the owners mind.

I don't feel the rimfire (or other) scopes need lighted crosshairs, bullet drop computation, or other such things. They only clutter and add to the confusion and sometimes at a critical moment; again my opinion.

.410 Shotguns

The .410 shotguns could be the most misunderstood of all guns, and certainly all shotgun gauges. The .410 (and 28) fight an up-hill battle of misunderstanding, misuse, real, and perceived disadvantages.

Many shooters shot squirrels or rabbits with a .410 when they were a kid. Some view the .410 as a gun for kids, an inconsistent crippler, and difficult to use on flying game.

Pictured left to right; a 3 inch Federal game load, 2.5 inch AA Winchester Skeet reload, (2) Remington slug loads, and a Federal slug load.

When .410 shotguns are built properly, on a .410 size frame, they are a delight to the eye and to the hand. But, many small gauge guns are adaptations on 20 gauge or even 12 gauge frames. Some shooters don't realize these "clunky guns" are poor examples of .410s.

Hunting for more than fifty years I have owned a fair number of shotguns: two 12s, five 20s, one 28, and eight .410s if memory serves me correctly. I've used many more shotguns, some extensively. From this list you can probably guess that I like small bores, and especially .410s.

I reloaded a lot of .410 and 20 gauge shells when I was shooting skeet regularly. I could shoot Skeet all day with the easy shooting light recoiling .410.

When I had a perfect or near perfect round at skeet some shooters seemed to think it a big accomplishment since I was using the little gun.  I always felt the little gun was an asset not a handicap.

When I shot a 12 gauge my average might go up very slightly, but at the end of the day I felt a little beat-up and more important I enjoyed the shooting less.

I've mostly hunted quail, dove, and a few woodcock. I've only hunted ducks, or geese occasionally, no not with a .410.  I've used every common gauge except the 10 gauge.

For close, short range shotgunning, water-hole incoming doves, quail over dogs, woodcock in thick timber, the .410 is my first choice. For small birds up to at least 20 yards an open choked .410 with #8 or #9 shot is hard to beat.

I'm very comfortable shooting the little gun. I don't try long shots, or to stretch the range like I sometimes do with a 20 gauge. My number of shots to kills average is usually slightly better with the .410 because I do pass on more marginal shots.

Many shooters seem ignorant of what these little guns can and cannot do. Some think that the the smaller guns throw smaller or tighter patterns; which seems logical. Most .410s come with a full choke which aids this thinking. Truth is an open choked .410's pattern opens up quickly and is said to throw the widest pattern of any gauge.

I believe the biggest single problem with the .410 is the full choke. Most .410's have a full choke for making the longest shots possible. But any person who understands wing shooting and shotguns would never buy a full choke for short range use.

The smaller diameter shot pattern of a full choke is harder to hit with. An open choked .410 is good to 20 yards on birds and comparatively easy to shoot well. A full choke is only reliable for a few more yards when the smaller pattern is centered on a bird. This makes it difficult to shoot well. ".410 shotguns are always short range guns!"

The .410 has a tendency to throw patterns with dense centers and thin uneven fringes. The longer shot column of the three inch shells and the full choke seem to magnify this problem. Plastic shot collars help but some shot is still deformed as it travels down the barrel.  Deformed shot doesn't fly as straight.

A second and related problem is shot size. Some shooters brag of making long shots using larger #6 shot or even #4 or #5 shot in the .410. These are lucky shots where a few pellets hit the animal's vitals. I don't believe shot larger than #6 should be used in .410s. The #6 shot only for those who like to hunt squirrels or rabbits with the little guns.

Larger shot sizes are for longer range shooting, and again ".410 shotguns are short range guns." The little shells don't hold enough shot to effectively use larger shot sizes.  BTW most all shotgun loads .410 to 10 gauge have very similar velocities; from about 1100 to 1300 fps.  Larger heavier shot does hold more energy per pellet and maintains the energy a little better.

But! Let's say that it takes 5 shot of a certain size to kill some bird at 30 yards.  At thirty yards a .410's smaller shot load may be too thin and only deliver 3 or 4 of those same pellets on the bird. At twenty yards the .410 will kill most any bird you hit.

The best shot sizes for birds are the smaller #8 and #9 shot. With the larger sizes of shot the pattern thins out very quickly. If you need to use larger shot sizes, use a 20 gauge, or even a 12.

The small gauges are not as versatile as the larger 12 or 20 gauges. The .410 does offer three inch loads which hold about 40% more shot. In my experience the three inch shells pattern less evenly, and their advantage is not as great as expected.

There are slug loads for use in .410 shotguns. I've only used the slugs for pest, and not enough to comment on them. They are not legal for deer in Oklahoma, and I wouldn't use them anyway.

Another uphill battle for the .410 and 28 is ammunition cost. The ammunition makers offer low cost promotional shells in 12 and 20 gauge. Remington has made a lower cost load, but it has limited use because it comes only with #6 shot and a 20 round box.

We must pay a premium or reload the little .410 and 28 gauge shells. Some say the shells cost more because there are less shells sold, but I wonder are less shells sold because they cost more? We appear to get less for more money, but as for me, in this case I have more fun with less gun.

Permanent Pages

I have added a new feature, "Permanent Pages" to the right column of the blog. These pages will be the ones which are always there for reference or possibly more important in some way.

This first additional page: "Rimfire Cartridges" list some interesting and popular .17, .20, & .22 rimfires.  It was one of the most popular pages on my website for years.

Simpler is sometimes better.

What do I mean when saying; "Simpler is sometimes better."

I've taken lots of game with firearms,
but taking this turkey with my bow means more.

I'll try to explain:

• Many of us like having gadgets! Some pay thousands of dollars for sun roofs, navigation, hands free blue tooth phone connection in a car and then can't or don't use them.
• In my "Buchanan Photography" blog I've noted that buying an expensive DSLR camera does not always lead to making better pictures.
• We like cool gadgets or tools, and they do most often make it easier to accomplish what we want.

But easier does not always equal more fun! Too Easy is soon... Boring.

I enjoy casting lures into pockets, around logs, stumps... when fishing. Making a good cast is somewhat entertaining. Trolling from a big fine boat, in open water, unless I'm catching lots of fish, I find that boring.

I enjoy plinking at almost anything with a simple slingshot for several reasons:

1. When I make a good shot, I am more involved in the shot with the simple tool, I, not the tool did it.
2. Even a miss with the slingshot, I can see the ball's flight, and there is something beautiful about that.
3. No big disturbance to the natural, no loud "bang!", big impact, more natural, more fitting.

• Shooting my recurve bow Is much the same as the slingshot but I must recover arrows.
• Hunting and getting within bow range of a deer is an accomplishment even without a kill.
• Taking a deer with my .243 is still fun, but no longer much challenge.
• I've also enjoyed putting together a great squirrel rifle, including the scope, and ammo combination, but with experience taking a squirrel that way can become too easy.

We approach most task in two ways:

1. We continue to find ways to improve our skills with the tools we are using.
2. We continue to find or buy tools which help us to accomplish the task more easily.
3. With simpler tools we may use both strategies, but the emphasis is on #1.

Simpler offers a more direct connection between the task, the accomplishment, and the user.

• For hunting simple tools such as the slingshot and the bow require more skill.
• To my mind simple also offers a greater reward to the user.
• I'll continue to love guns and gadgets, but simpler is often better for me.
  

Posted with Blogsy