This report covers:
- Girardoni
- Technology?
- The ancient valve seals
- AirForce Airguns brought it forward
- Velocity wars
- Arrows
- Technology’s bonus
- Accuracy
- Put it together
- Expectations
- Summary
Today we take a look at where we are in the world of airguns. This report is based on many of the recent reports that have explored airgun design from the past to the present. Reader RidgeRunner was the inspiration for this look at airgun design. In his comment to the How we fix them today report he said:
“In a reference to yesterday’s blog [Remember the good old days?], it was mentioned that today’s PCPs have highly efficient valves. Will a modern airgun give you twenty “lethal” shots from a 46-caliber air rifle inflated to only about 800 PSI?”
Girardoni
That was a reference to the Girardoni repeating air rifle of 1780. We know that it could be pressurized to between 600 and 800 psi and that it got at least 20 lethal shots, shooting a .46-.47 caliber round ball.
I answered RidgeRunner with this:
“Yes, the Girardoni was beyond the state of the art for its time. But that air tank would leak down in 24-36 hours because the seals were not airtight.”
Technology?
That started a whole discussion of what could have been done in 1780 to solve the air leaking “problem”. I put quotes around the word problem because it was nothing of the kind. A repeating airgun had never before been seen and repeating firearms were the things of dreams. Just getting the Girardoni air rifle to work at all was an achievement equal to sending a man to the moon. There may have been fewer steps involved, but air rifle technology took a 100-year leap forward with the Girardoni.
The Girardoni military repeater of 1780 is an air rifle that was at least a century ahead of its time.
The ancient valve seals
And by the way, the airgun valves at the time of the Girardoni had animal horn seals that were carefully hand-lapped into shape. They were as airtight as they could possibly be for the time. For those of you who have my book, BB Guns Remembered, Chapter 15, titled, The wind gun of Prostl, documents how such a valve was made and also how the air tank was sealed.
AirForce Airguns brought it forward
In the late 1990s, AirForce Airguns took a portion of the Girardoni design and brought it into the late 20th century. Their air reservoir that also serves as the butt of the rifle uses the same straight flow-through air valve design that Girardoni pioneered. It was efficient in 1780 and remains efficient today. What works — WORKS!
Velocity wars
But AirForce was and still is at a disadvantage because today’s couch commandos are demanding either greater velocity or muzzle energy, which are the same, though nobody seems to recognize it! If other companies try to one-up the AirForce Texan, all Airforce has to do is increase the caliber. So now we have a Texan that can kill a deer with 850 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, when all it takes is around 250 foot-pounds.
“Yes, BB, but you don’t understand. If we can get 850 foot-pounds at the muzzle it means the distance at which we can still kill game is increased!”
BB understands, alright. And, pray tell, can you keep five shots inside an 8-inch circle at 100 meters when shooting offhand?
“Oh I never shoot offhand. It’s too hard and the air rifles are too heavy for that. I always look for a way to rest my shot.”
My answer to that is don’t ever try to get a hunting license in Germany, because that is one test you must pass!
Arrows
Okay, Pilgrim, let’s talk about shooting game with arrows then. We know that arrows launched from longbows that travel 250 f.p.s. will humanely dispatch a deer. Yet today’s high-tech crossbows are touting 400+ f.p.s. velocities and some of the air bows we see are topping 500 f.p.s. Why? Because, once again, people who don’t use them but think they want to, believe that velocity kills. It might when you talk about the bullets from centerfire rifles that kill with hydrostatic shock. When it comes to arrows, though, it’s a whole different game. They kill with bleed-out, which is a completely different thing.
An air bow that launches an arrow at 250 f.p.s. is all that’s needed.
“Yes, but BB, it’s that distance thing again. I want to shoot game at much longer distances.”
And I will ask again, how far away do you think you will be hunting game with an arrow? Arrows are not 150-yard projectiles.
Technology’s bonus
Today we have synthetics that will retain pressurized air for decades instead of hours! Modern air valves will do wonders with lower air pressure. Tim McMurray and Larry Durham proved that with their innovative USFT rifle that gets 50+ high-power shots on air pressurized to just 1600 psi.
BB’s USFT rifle.
From the USFT came the Benjamin Discovery that ushered in the 2,000 psi fill. And now Crosman’s 3622 does it even more affordably! Just a few days ago reader Elmer Fudd showed us how incredibly accurate the 3622 can be — WHEN THE RIGHT THINGS ARE DONE.
Crosman’s 3622 is a revolutionary new PCP that has changed the marketplace in a major way!
Accuracy
Without repeating the things I’ve said over the past two weeks I will say that we also tend to be WAY more concerned with accuracy than we should. I’m probably very guilty of causing this to happen, because I always try to shoot the best groups I can. My reasoning was always to show you how good, or not-good a certain airgun can be, so you would know before taking the plunge. But in retrospect I see I’ve gone overboard in the accuracy department.
You don’t need to shoot ultra-small groups for an airgun to be good. RidgeRunner is letting it all hang out as we watch him test his airguns. On the other hand Elmer Fudd has re-introduced us to the importance of the proper placement of the sighting eye. His group shot with the Crosman 3622 has shamed BB!
Put it together
We have the materials to keep the gun sealed nearly forever. We have modern valves to give us a fabulous number of shots. If we plan the design of the airflow we can do even more with less, and that works because we know that we don’t need all the velocity in the world. A fraction of what the world thinks is needed will do the job.
It is possible RIGHT NOW to make a multi-pump big bore air rifle that will kill a deer humanely. That same multi-pump can be made to launch an arrow that will also dispatch large game humanely.
Oh, and RidgeRunner, sorry to tell you this but Wang Po Industries could do everything I’ve just said at a price even you could afford. But, hold on — SO COULD CROSMAN! Their 362 could be made into a big bore that gets ONE SHOT with a .45-caliber lead ball. Maybe it wouldn’t go out the muzzle any faster than 500 f.p.s. but I seem to recall that a Girardoni rifle with the same capability killed an enemy soldier at over 100 yards before the dawn of the 19th century!
Okay, maybe some modifications would have to be made to the 362 — things like a larger air reservoir and a purpose-built valve. The point is — it’s possible. But would “people” accept it? If we are talking about couch commandos and the forum freedom fighters, probably not. If we are talking about real hunters who routinely kill game — maybe so.
Expectations
We have to learn to manage our expectations. A squirrel hunter doesn’t need 30 shots that fall within 3 f.p.s. variation. Maybe a benchrest shooter or a field target competitor do, but not most people.
It doesn’t take 1000 foot-pounds to dispatch a deer. It can be done humanely with a whole lot less. All you get with big muzzle energy is bragging rights. The same goes for arrows.
If a longbow can drop a deer with a 250 f.p.s. arrow why do we need to shoot them twice as fast? People will tell you we do it so the deer won’t be spooked by the sound of the shot and move before the arrow arrives, and there could be some truth to that. But what about a stalk that brings us so close that it doesn’t matter? I admit this is a weak point for me a I have not hunted with a bow, so maybe I better quit commenting.
We don’t need to put 10 pellets into one-tenth of an inch at 25 yards, either. But isn’t it nice to know we can when the right things are done? Isn’t it also nice to know that it doesn’t take a thousand-dollar airgun to do it?
Summary
My point today is — we are constantly asking for things that don’t exist, and aren’t needed most of the time. From my perspective the people who do a lot of the asking for these things aren’t going to use the capability when it is finally brought to the market.
A better question to ask is, why do I like a certain airgun and can I live with its weaknesses?
B.B.
IMHO the future of airguns is their 100 yard accuracy. Pellets out to 75-90 yards, slugs there after.
A quality PCP will out shoot any rimfire at 100-250 yards.
-Yogi
PS If a price point PCP can not outshoot a rim fire at 100 yards, please keep it in the bean counter’s back pocket and not in production. What a waste of resources…
Yogi, a half as .22 rimfire accurate PPPCP will still be better than most shooters can take advantage of.
Yeah, shooters should spend more time at the range. Practice makes perfect-well at least a whole lot better…
-Y
I, I, I suddenly need Crosman to make a 345!
I have a secret to share, Crosman has made a 350 in the past….
Ian
A multi pump big bore?
Hmm, we could do that…
I mean we already pump a 392 eight or ten times for one shot of lesser calibers, why not in .357, .45 or .50 caliber?
Oh on the repeating firearms topic, the Kalthoff was a 30 shot repeating flintlock from about 1659.
Heres a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghKrbNpqQoY
Ian
Ian,
I will watch this video, but as I recall the balls were loaded in series and the gun tended to blow up when shot.
BB
That was a different gun.
The balls are stored under the barrel, the powder in the butt stock,
As the lever under the action is rotated , lots of things happen including , cocking the gun, loading the ball, metering the charge,and priming the pan.
..
Ian.
Ian
Thank you for that, it was a remarkable piece of machinery. I was not aware that there were any repeating flintlocks and, in fact, didn’t think that was even possible. But I find there were others as well.
I may have to subscribe to this guys utube channel as I have seen others of his that were equally interesting.
His statements regarding the fragility of the actions of this gun that precluded it’s use as a “standard issue” could be used in regard to the Girandoni just as easily. Both remarkable acheivements, but, ultimately akin to glass hammers.
Ed
I like good accuracy, not for shooting at targets, but for head shots. I have always been a head shot kinda guy. A squirrel’s head is a pretty small target, even at 25 yards. A deer’s head is not that big of a target at 100 yards. A groundhog head is pretty small at 500 yards. In my time I have shot a couple of deer in the body. No thank you.
I have a few airguns here at RRHFWA that do not provide me with what I consider to be hunting accuracy, but they sure are fun to use when I feel like killing feral soda cans. I have also built a “target tree” with some pretty small spinners to help with keeping my eye in when I do need to tighten up my shooting.
I do have a couple of air rifles that I would not be afraid of hunting anything with at reasonable ranges, 100 yards or less. Where I live, I would be lucky to get a shot that far in the woods.
I also try to wring the most out of my airguns when I do a guest blog for you folks, but I have some airguns here that even BB would say they can shoot around corners. Accuracy is not why they are in my “collection”.
Isn’t it wonderful knowing that AI is going to perfectly sort out demand and supply. AI will know that in spite of my being only a target shooter in my old age, my Izzy 61 is a favorite in spite of its inability to shoot one inch groups at 25 yards.
Seriously, lots of interesting history in this report.
Deck
Deck,
I would like to add an Izzy 60 to my “collection” just for history’s sake. I would also like to have one of those old UK sproingers with the compression chamber in the stock that the Izzy 60 was based on.
RidgeRunner
I would prefer the Izzy 60 over the Izzy 61 for accuracy.
Deck
Deck,
Did not know that. The 60 was first. That is why I would want one.
BB,
As you should well know, Wang Po Industries has not made accurate airguns long enough to be seriously considered to be “old gals” as is most of my “collection”. I am not likely going to live that long for that to be true. I do freely admit that some of my reservations concerning owning an airgun made in China is due to some of my personal socio/political views. As I am likely not actively intending to expand my “collection” any further, I could care less what Uncle Xi and his cronies make. Please do feel free to use me as the “whipping boy” on this topic though. It really does not bother me.
The only reason I have acquired this Gamo is to see where they have gone over the years. I have already come to the conclusion that they have not gone very far. I personally am not impressed with this air rifle, but there are those who seem somewhat interested so I will do a bit more with it.
I do have some very accurate air rifles. How many more do I need?
RidgeRunner
Hope you will try slugs. Just thinking the harmonics or twist is better for slugs. I’m predicting they will at least do as well as pellets even at 25 yards.
Deck
In the Gamo? Well, I do happen to have some in .22. Maybe I will, just for giggles.
BB,
I hate to have to say it, but your picture is not a Girandoni air rifle. It looks like a Lukens air rifle or a Brigand air rifle made by Dennis Quackenbush.
Brent
Brent,
Nope. That is a Girardoni. I will admit it’s a pretty fuzzy picture. How about this one from my living room wall?
Don’t get too excited about this one though. It’s only a resin copy. I lack the money to have the real thing.
BB
And the photo…
Now that I look at it, I see you’re right — that isn’t a Girardoni. It’s a Shembor — a copy of the Girardoni. And this one has the wood cut off. It belongs to Larry Hannusch and I have shot it at the Texas airgun show.
BB
Brent,
FYI: Quackenbush Brigand
shootski
Shootski,
I thought the Brigand was the outside lock airgun in .375 caliber powered by CO2 that should never be mentioned in Dennis Quackenbush‘s presence
Brent
Brent,
Liege Lock (Outside Lock)
The Amaranth is a butt reservoir, tap loader in .375 and .43 cal.
shootski
I would really like to have one of these, but as Brent says, do not mention this to Dennis unless you are willing to listen to his tirade.
Thanks BB!
I enjoy this type of blog. It could have been called “The Practical Use of Airguns”.
As much as I love technology years of designing has always kept me focused on practical application. Excess capability is wasted money.
Unfortunately the customers (who are always right) demand the extremes even while they complain about the costs.
I think that many people don’t know what they REALLY need before making a purchase. The forums are full of guys who buy .30 caliber PCPs for plinking and squirrel hunting because the might need to shoot at a coyote at 100 yards. That’s an expensive caliber (ammo and air) to plink with.
A prime example of a tool for the job is the “primitive” wood bow that humans fed themselves with. Hand crafted from natural materials with simple tools, these bows (typically) had a draw weight in the 40 to 45 pound area and shot an arrow at 150ish fps. Yeah, a bit more power would increase the range but these old bows put meat on the table for centuries. I’ve taken plenty of deer with homemade wood bows myself, they work fine.
The Brits with their 12 fpe regulations are a modern example of the fact that high power is not needed to humanely take rabbits at 30 to 40 yards.
Just saying that (excessive) power is not a substitute for skill.
Happy Friday all!
Hank
Vana
Unfortunately, Hank, we are not all gifted with the attributes necessary for obtaining the accuracy needed to take game with a bow only capable of 150 fps. Or even with a rifle with open sights.
Many of us would not find it easy to estimate the holdover needed nor distance from the target, as one needs to do when hunting. And,, for the vast majority, trying to hit a game animal in the part of the head that contains the brain, whether stationary or moving,, without the very real chance of only blinding or otherwise maiming without the chance of recovering, would be beyond us,
The accuracy of any weapon is totally dependent upon the one holding it. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the same desire to go hunting as those few who have the right gifts.
This is why we want more power. Not to knock down the animal, but to give us a reasonable chance of making a killing shot. If a projectile has more speed,, whether bullet or arrow, the flatter its trajectory will be. The flatter the trajectory the less one needs to estimate holdover or distance,, at least within a given range.
That is the reason I, personally, like more power. And the reason I seldom consider head shots. I am simply not good enough to guarantee that I won’t cripple instead of kill.
Ed
Could not have said it better, myself, Ed. So I’ll just agree with you. I agree with Hank and Ridgerunner, too, but I know my limitations. I go for heart/lung shots on deer. Most don’t go far at all.
Roamin,
Same here for bow hunting deer – heart/lung shots. For rifle it’s neck shots, minimum damage to meat and they drop on the spot.
Small game it’s head shots and center of mass for pests.
Hank
With neck shots, I worry the I won’t hit the spinal cord and the deer may recover from the initial shock and run off.
I can’t bring myself to make a head shot at a deer. I saw one that was shot in the mouth by a relative. Had to track it over hill and dale, across a half-frozen creek, and up a steep, muddy creek embankment. Luckily, I finally caught up to him and put him down for good. Sadly, many such deer would never be recovered.
Roamin,
I shoot at the area high on the neck, it’s about the size of a pop can and any hit centered there is effective. It’s either a clean kill or a miss.
Roamin Greco,
I will add to Hank’s (Vana2) neck shot pitch.
You aren’t actually aiming for the spinal cord directly. You are looking for a hit on one of the seven cervical vertebrae (I prefer as high as possible) in the neck of Virginia (White-tailed) Deer. Those vertebrae create a target almost as large as the “pump house” most seem to feel is a safer shot.
Culling sharpshooters typically prefer the neck shot because the deer almost always drops on the spot. It takes some anatomy study to understand when you have a “clean” shot since deer necks are fairly flexible; another reason i like the vertebrae closer to the head is if the deer moves after your projectile is on (jumping the string/report) the way you may just get a brain shot. Deer don’t actually jump when startled they typically lower themselves in my many observations.
A very effective Moderator is the best answer for sub sonic hunting/culling.
Experience teaches when to shoot or not shoot; not much else.
shootski
Ed, do you mind if I disagree?
I’ve proved (many times over) that if the person has the coordination to hit their mouth with a fork (most of the time 😉 ) that they can learn to shoot a bow well enough to deer hunt.
Like many things archery is a matter of learning the basics and doing some practice.
If you want to hunt then you need to know your quarry to be able get within your effective range.
For deer you don’t need super fine accuracy, if you can consistently hit a 9″ paper plate you are good to go (marginally) for that range.
When coaching a new shooter I work on stance, hold/grip, breathing, drawing, focus, release and follow through. All similar to gun shooting.
The target is a paper plate with a 4 inch circle and a one inch dot. The dot is the aim point, 4 inches is the “threshold” group size and the paper plate is the size of the kill-zone on an adult whitetail deer.
For practice (once the basics are understood) start at 10 feet, shoot until you can consistently group three arrows in the 4 inch circle. Then take one step back and repeat until you reach your prefered hunting range.
Practice with a low poundage bow to start, take frequent breaks and stop when you lose focus or get tired.
Most people can get a 10 to 15 yard effective range (all arrows hit the paper plate) pretty fast and that’s plenty for hunting.
A friend takes a deer every year with a bow he made from a red oak board. Not because he is an expert shot but because he is a good hunter and knows deer – most of his shots are at 25-30 feet.
Yeah, sophisticated equipment stacks the odds in your favor but none of what I mentioned above is beyond the capabilities of the average guy.
Cheers!
Vana2
All you say is true. Anyone can be taught to shoot a bow,,, or a rifle,,, well enough to take game at a known distance. The issue is with the “average” guy.
From my experience, the average hunter ( whether bow or rifle) seldom practices after the first one or two years. They don’t get into the woods other than a bit of small game hunting or a walk with the kids. The point is the average hunter is not very good at the craft.
So, if we don’t want to see crippled animals or find their carcasses because the shooter didn’t know how to follow a blood trail, giving them equipment that A. is easy to use and B. takes the issue of range estimation out of the picture, is essential.
I wish that we had stricter regulations when it comes to who can get a hunting license, but that is unlikely to happen in the US. So, as a curtesy to the animals we hunt, providing the equipment that allow the “average” guy the best chance of placing the bullet or arrow in the right place seems to me to be the only answer.
Ed
Ed,
Yeah, I know what you mean about average guys with marginal skills. Unfortunately you see a lot of these people driving on the road 🙁
Without (repeat) tests to prove competence we are stuck. So do we give the guy equipment that encourages him to attempt shot even further than his effective range (potentially wounding more game) or is it better to limit the equipment (and the range) to protect the game from incompetence.
Hard question, no real answer.
There is hope though. The guy I traded archery equipment for my FX Crown was challenged to hit a 5-gallon pail at 25 yards given 5 tries with his 300 Weatherby Magnum. I coached him enough that he shot better with the bow than he did with his deer rifle (think it was too much caliber for him and said so). He’s been doing good with the bow (2 deer) and since replaced the Weatherby with a 30-30.
Think that the biggest problem with people is that they don’t recognize/accept their level of skill and don’t see any reasons to try to improve. Regular competence testing is needed… especially for drivers!
Cheers!
Vana
Agreed. In fact there are other places where competency tests ought to be required. There is still time before November, I think.
Seriously, tho, skills testing for use of deadly weapons isn’t likely to fly in our American culture. We are actually fortunate that we have them even once for driving.
Ed
Happy Friday to you, as well.
For consideration by all:
Two comments come to mind. Increased velocity brings one tangible benefit–“flatter” trajectory, which simplifies aiming and increases “point blank range.” But the issue becomes where do we stop? Where is that point where more velocity doesn’t bring significantly more benefit or actually begins to have negative consequences.
Which brings me to the velocity wars, of which I was almost complicit. Wanting an airgun, but knowing little about them, I walked into the local [big box/ sporting goods] store and perused the offerings. The easiest way to differentiate them bags on the packaging was by mentally making the following calculation: FPS ÷ price. In my ignorance, I thought, if two airguns both cost $100 but one claims 1600 fps and the other only 1200, then the first one must be better. Never mind anything else we know about airguns from reading this blog since 2005. Nevermind what the airgun would be actually used for.
So I would say, increased velocity has some benefit, but it takes knowledge and understanding of your needs and circumstances to know when enough is enough.
Roamin Greco,
I can try to give this one a go:
“Where is that point where more velocity doesn’t bring significantly more benefit or actually begins to have negative consequences.”
When the projectile exits on the other side with enough force to do damage to something beyond the intended target.
shootski
Agree, or it could be simply the point where the projectile goes hypersonic and wakes up the family (if one were shooting targets in the basement range at night) or bothers the neighbors on the other side of your backyard fence. Or it could be that all that velocity comes at the price of reduced accuracy (think oversprung Wally World airguns). Lots of circumstances.
As far as repeating firearms being a dream at the time of the girardoni I highly recommend the recent forgotten weapons video on the Kalthoff repeater, 30 shot repeating flintlock design from the 1640s that did see some limited combat useage. The point you’re making still stands it was far too complex to be viable for all but a couple niche uses but it’s an interesting watch on likely the earliest repeater and the craftsmanship is on a level I’ve never seen elsewhere.
We are very lucky to have this very special place. Thank you BB for all you do. You want to hear from us. You listen to us. And we all learn from each other and benefit accordingly. Whether we are competing with others, or just with ourselves and trying to improve, accuracy is the typical gauge we use to help judge the level of our skills.
I keep seeing on social media the Turkish olympic shooter that seemingly astonished the world by not having all of the latest and greatest gear, but still (looking very casual) won a medal. Please continue to teach us how to improve our skills. I have learned so much from your teachings. And I know there is a lot more to come.
BB,
as far as “…why do I like a certain airgun and can I live with its weaknesses?”, this is where I have most of my fun with airguns. What can I do with this one, and how much can I tinker with it.
As far as hunting goes, I am not going to argue about it. But I will say that my hunting friends and I have a different perspective than you described.
CB
Ruark wrote Use Enough Gun. Good idea. Using a Red Ryder to make holes in paper is fine. There was a recent example of an attempted head shot that didn’t work. I think we owe it to living things to follow Ruark’s advice. Use enough power, air or pb, to make up for an imperfect shot. Heads move more than other parts.
Gene43,
my brother runs a deer tracking service here in Michigan (Committed Deer Tracking). You wouldn’t believe the number of calls he gets from deer shot with guns that meet Michigan’s laws, but don’t get the job done. He writes some of those stories occasionally for Woods-N-Water News.
CB
Captain Bravo,
Is it really the guns that meet the Michigan laws that don’t get the job done? Or is it the shooter that is likely the cause of a runner?
I don’t want to argue hunting but would love to know about other perspectives than BB’s as well as mine.
Airgun hunting regulations are currently a real mess in the USA with wide ranging perspectives on acceptance, type of equipment, projectile caliber/power minimums, as well as what is/isn’t legal prey. Most of it makes little or no sense in my opinion.
I’m still trying to learn all the different points of view just in my state.
shootski
Shootski,
All I can say is what I have observed, and what those around me have discussed. 100% anecdotal and acknowledging that real world hunting doesn’t always yield perfect shot placement. Where I live in Michigan, above the “shotgun line”, you can use any centerfire 22 caliber or larger, and airguns 30 caliber and larger filled from an external source (PCP).
Given the above, I have two family members that use a 243 and a 270. Both of them are experienced deer hunters and good shots. Either one of those guns should put deer down quickly even with less than perfect shot placement. But both of them have had deer go hundreds of yards after being shot, when they thought that they shot was good enough that the deer should have been incapacitated quicker. Outside of family, I’ve heard a lot more stories, especially from trackers, about deer shot with three calibers that seem to be the worst. Subsonic 300 Blackout with any ammunition, and either a 350 Legend or 450 Bushmaster particularly with Hornady ammunition. That’s not a slam on Hornady, typically I would trust it myself, but trackers around here are getting lots of calls from them. Keep in mind these are stories from trackers who only get called when the hunter can’t find the deer, but they get a lot of calls to track deer shot with those three calibers. By contrast if those same guys get calls about deer shot with 7mm Remington magnum or 300 Winchester magnum, they generally aren’t going to find that deer. A shot even close to the boiler room kills it almost every time and usually very quickly. So if they do get called, it really was a bad shot.
I haven’t talked to anyone that hunts deer with an airgun, but given what I have seen and heard, I wouldn’t use one for deer unless I was hunting a large section of property, and had a tracking dog available. (Part of the issue is that the land is parceled up pretty small around here and you don’t want your deer running off to someone’s land that won’t let you track)
Given all of that, some of us have taken to using guns on the larger side. The amount of edible meat that gets damaged isn’t that much different between a 243 and a 7mm mag. But from everything I’ve seen the 7mm mag will put the deer down much more quickly and reliably than the 243.
Again, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That’s just some of my observations.
Your mileage may vary, caveat emptor, etc.
CB
Captain Bravo,
Thank you for taking the time to provide the answer to my question.
I use a .308 cal. 1:10 Quackenbush with 16″ of suppression and shooting 130+ grain hollowpoints (99.8 Lead) getting over 200 FPE at the deer.
It works without fail thus far on urban/suburban culls; i’m hopefull it stays that way.
Thanks again,
shootski
Shootski,
so you have shot deer with what would be the minimum in Michigan. Sounds like you have been successful with it. Are you shooting for the heart/lungs, or are you going for head shots?
CB
CB,
I replied to Roamin Greco above: https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2024/08/what-we-need/#comment-520286
Click on the link for your answer or scroll up.
shootski
Shootski,
that is interesting. More data for the file. Thank you.
CB
Another side of the discussion is that comes a time when we have to learn to live with and adapt to our weaknesses, which will dictate the kind of shooting we do, the gun for the job and the required adaptive accessories. FM speaketh from experience. By the way, as described by BB, FM would NOT be able to qualify for a hunting license in Germany today, but no angst about that. Hunting iguanas here in my Uncle Sam’s backyard is plenty good and more than enough. As has been said more than once, “less is more.”
Let’s not forget to count our blessings for the good things we do have, especially our health.
Amen!
B.B. and Readership,
The hunting rules have changed since Tom hunted in Germany as well as when i hunted in most of the NATO-OTAN nations some decades ago. From discussions with some Jäger that i hunted with the hunting rules have been “harmonized” across most of Europe to eliminate all the confusion of the recent past. Most of it was based on the UK hunting rules which were more stringent than most of the Continental regulations.
Shooting into two MRAD at 100 meters isn’t that hard if you use a proper sling. Of course it helps to be in good enough shape to SHOOT-SKI (BIATHLON) where you shoot prone and standing into some smallish targets with a rimfire .22 Long Rifle after having skied a few Kilometer.
My feeling is that IF the target is “8-inch circle at 100 meters” then a gun that shoots to one MOA or less makes the task easier than a gun that shoots into 2-8 MOA.
shootski
BB & readers,
“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.” Not sure that Sir Mick was a hunter, but kind of summed it up.
When I was in high school, a friend was bow hunting deer. He was complaining to one of the “old guys” (probably 35!) that he’d missed a shot on a really nice 8-point. Not even looking up from his coffee cup, the reply was “You weren’t close enough.”
How close was that shot taken, with that 45 lb stick bow by a meat hunting Native American?
Inaccurate? Slow projectile? Increase your field skills, get closer for the shot.
Make the tool work for what you want to do with it.
(& then be happy with the results)
Bill
“…SO COULD CROSMAN! Their 362 could be made into a big bore that gets ONE SHOT with a .45-caliber lead ball…Okay, maybe some modifications would have to be made to the 362 — things like a larger air reservoir and a purpose-built valve. The point is — it’s possible. But would ‘people’ accept it?”
BB, count me in! I’d buy one tomorrow! Great post! 🙂
Davemyster,
Sounds awful cool to me. I like that idea.
Doc
Doc, yeah, awful cool, for sure! 😉
BB or regulars blog readers,
Has there been a blog on the Umarex Origin? I thought there had been, but where I search for it, I don’t get any results
Was wanting to read more about it since I like the idea of 2000 psi guns. This one is more but I read it gets a lot of shots for the amount of pumps
Doc
I used Google Advanced Search for “Umarex Origin” and limited to the site “pyramydair/blog” and couldn’t find anything either. However there is this review from Hard Air Magazine: https://hardairmagazine.com/reviews/umarex-origin-pcp-air-rifle-review-summary-and-conclusions/
Roamin,
I did the same. Was a very good review. Thank You
Doc
Sometimes, all a man needs is a long hallway and an HW75.
Fish,
And a wife/partner willing to let you shoot indoors.
Lol! :)))
The big part of the equation apart, Air Venturi V10 is my choice. Though, I’ll always contemplate what if…
I would like to have the HW45 and HW75. The AV V10 was the Gamo and is now the BSA Challenger. I am also unfamiliar with these, but the price keeps coming down and I may just have to get one.
My Izzy is a real nice shooter and my Predom Luzcnik is not half bad either. The Boss just will not let me shoot inside, except to eliminate a pest that has managed to enter RRHFWA.
I just watched two bucks with beautiful racks. I sure would like to have a couple of the fawns in my freezer.
RidgeRunner
“ I just watched two bucks with beautiful racks.”
Good start for the morning. Part of my fun shooting airguns from my deck is the sound doesn’t bother wildlife much. We get about everything here including deer, wild turkey and geese. Tree rats can put on a good show when they aren’t wary. I have no problem with folks who hunt them all and I was one of them for many years. Nowadays it seems I’d rather just watch them.
Have you decided to have a table at the Hickory, NC show? Either way I hope to see you there.
Deck
I have on more than one occasion had to wait until the tree rats got out of the way to shoot. Vana2 has that problem with the deer. We also have much other game about that both my wife and I enjoy watching. The dog has made the rabbits pretty much non-existent though.
I myself quit hunting a long time ago, but around here it is not only a pastime, but for some it is a necessity. My deer tend to be a bit leery of humans.
I will not likely have a table at the NC show. As I have just spent what is for me an outrageous amount on a new air rifle, there is serious doubt at this moment as to whether Mrs. RR will allow me to attend at all. If I do happen to show up it will be as usual on Saturday, and I will likely have a couple of airguns in need of finding a new home. I am already thinking of a couple that should probably find another place to live out their lives. I am myself hoping to be there. Maybe you will let me pry one of those “old gals” of yours from your hands. 😉
RidgeRunner
If you haven’t already looked at it see the video eye candy below Henry_TX provided. If mid 17th century is correct airguns are a century older than I thought.
Deck
Deck,
I don’t know the full conversation you guys are having but airguns date back to around the year 1350 as far as we know now.
BB
If you include blow guns, then they date possibly to the stone age.
Mike
BB and Mike
I wasn’t counting blowguns but I forgot about bagpipes. Likely somebody shot sticks or arrows with bagpipes. Were 14th century airguns pneumatic?
Deck
Deck,
Yes.
BB
RR, if you’re going to be at the NC airgun show, FM would appreciate a heads up. Not sure will make it this year given the traveling we’ve done already, plus likely making another trip to NC in October for a bro-in-law’s birthday party. Hm, maybe he could be pulled in to the Dark and/or Sproinger Side then FM could entice him to go to Newton in November. Just a thought.
Very likely, but that is still a few months off. Now you have to come and drag your b-n-l along with you. There is no better way to enter the world of airguns than to go to an airgun show. 😉
While browsing videos on antique airguns I came across this nice collection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb_4-YvECgo
Besides a Girardoni, there are some other marvelous examples of gun making.
Henry
Henry_TX
Thank you for posting this excellent display of priceless airguns.
Deck
Deck,
As BB stated, PCPs have been around a long time. I have seen photos of some from the 1500s. As he stated, Europeans were making bellows guns in the 1300s. These operated very similar to the bagpipes that you described, though I can honestly say I have never heard of anyone using their bagpipes in such a manner.
Thanks Henry. Robert Beeman had some incredible airguns in his collection.
Readership:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1062039326
I have been watching this for a while. The Diana 36 is a Diana 34 with a nicer front sight that accepts inserts and stock with checkered grip area and rubber but pad. The trigger is adjustable. No bids yet? This one needs to find a good home, don’t you think? I already have one.