Bullfrog

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 400 total)
  • Views :
  • Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Coyotes are vermin in Florida to be killed with whatever is in hand. 

    I’ve killed many with a .22 magnum. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Steelhead707

    Don't get your tail feathers in a ruffle. I killed my first birds with a .25 too. And I'd still use it today…in fact I might this evening since I swapped scopes on my Raptor .30 and it's not sighted in.

    A .25 is fine for turkey. Just know your limitations and I still stand by the opinion that you should head shoot them. You made a great example with that kill zone circle (which is cool…did not know about that little feather line to the vitals). The head is twice the size of that circle. If you can hit that then you can hit the head too. If you CAN'T hit that little circle on a body shot, do you still take the shot? It's an honest question the answer is dependent on variables form range, angles, shooting ability, bird escapability, etc.  But if the kill zone is that small it stand to reason to just head shoot them.

    I'm not here to argue with you…we all know that a .25 pellet or slug is ample to kill a turkey, head or body. However, I stand by the opinion that the odds of bird recovery increase tenfold if you head shoot them, which shouldn't be a problem inside of 50 yards.

    No one's feathers is ruffled, except the turkeys. Just kindly disagreeing with you. The kill zone is wider than the circle. I just used the circle hollowed out in the middle to demonstrate what's under the center of the POI. With the turkey I just killed with the body shot on the .25, I hit it here where the yellow was because of the rushed nature of the second shot:

     

    One reason I strongly advocate the point of the wing over the head is that the head is constantly moving. Not only up and down and left and right but swiveling in place as the turkey uses one eye to look at something then both eyes to focus, and back to one eye again. Squeeze off the pellet at the wrong second and you may catch his beak, which can not only deflect the shot but also permanently mangle the bird's mouth. The only time the head is stable is during a strut. 

     

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Steelhead707

    I have my own opinions based on experience…doesn't make me right or wrong. I'm not into 'forcing' slugs out of guns designed to shoot pellets. That being said, I own a .308 Texan which pretty much leads the field in .30 caliber power and range so that fills my need for a bullet shooter. I think slugs in .25 cal guns is splitting hairs on effectiveness. Again, in hunting situations the quarry does not follow the rules that are on your computer, calculator, or shooting bench. All of the variables come into play; moving target, varying ranges, terrain 'escapability' for the bird, and your shooting skill. A kill shot is a kill shot with a JSB, Hades, Polymag, plain slug, whatever. I'm all for putting the best option out there for effectiveness but it's not like one ammo vs. the other is a huge gamechanger. For .25 cal. there's no substitute for a head shot, period. All other shots are limited in effectiveness just by physics.

    One thing that nobody discusses is trajectory. I hunt a lot with the Texan and it's much easier to hunt with 110 gr. than with 150 gr. due to the flat trajectory. There is less elevation to worry about and the flatter trajectory makes for a more accurate shot placement, especially at 100 yards and beyond. I'm sure the same applies to small bore pellet shooters.

    If you're going to use a .25, take head shots only at close range and use an ammo that you're comfortable and confident with. Remember, I have birds run off often after getting hit solid with a 150 gr. bullet. The difference between .25 ammo style means squat…just make a good head shot.

    What's your shot placement that you've had bad experiences with using a .25? You're aware I took my first airgun turkey with a .25 with a bodyshot and made a clean kill with it. I also have over a decade's experience rifle shooting turkeys. 

    I don't believe energy is very relevant to cleanly killing turkeys with body shots. If you don't hit one right with a 2000fpe .308 firearm rifle, you'll loose the bird. If you hit one right with a .22LR, it will go to flopping where it stands every time. I've killed so many turkeys with small caliber firearms that I throw the beards and spurs away now on big gobblers. I only keep tail fans for decoy use. Shot placement is everything. I'd find energy relevant only to the extent energy controls deformation and deformation controls wound hole size. I've cleanly killed turkeys with calibers as small as .204 on body vital shots, but I was trusting fragmenting bullets to make a hole on the inside larger than the caliber. That's why I wouldn't body shoot a turkey with a .22 airgun. It can pierce the vitals fine. I just don't trust the wound hole size. 

    Here's where a person needs to body shoot a turkey with any weapon. Failure to hit one here can and often results in a lost turkey. You find it by following the feather line on the neck down to where it triangles into the wing. It is critical on strutters that you find it by following the lines or else you'll end up shooting breast, feather, or guts. Their bodies are contorted severely when they strut and you can't guess where the vitals are under all of that. You have to follow the lines. You also should only take broadside shots. 

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Bullfrog.
    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Shot placement: where the wing connects to the body. It breaks the wing and frags the vitals behind it. 
     

    I’ve killed many turkeys over the years with small caliber firearm rifles. That is THE shot to take with a non-shotgun single projectile. Some people may consider that a lower neck shot, I don’t know. But in reality is the turkey equivalent of a behind-the-shoulder double lung shot on a whitetail. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    .30 is just fine for squirrels. Head shoot them and you’ll lose no meat. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    $326.18

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    My airguns exist for hunting first and foremost so hunting versatility is my number one consideration

    Its hard to separate caliber from the gun. .300 is my favorite caliber, but my favorite gun has a .308 barrel that shoots both .308 bullets and .300 pellets well and easily adjusts between 80fpe and 200fpe. That .308 is my all purpose gun, but that’s because its acting as a hybrid of 2 calibers. 

    I think .300 can kill everything in the southern US woods with a brain shot and most things with a lung shot. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    GQ

    Interesting that we do not need slug liner for those slugs. I think we need a slug liner barrel for NSA or Nielsen.

    I am wrong or right ?

    It depends if you are asking about a FX barrel or pellet barrels more generally. I’ve found that both NSA and Rat Snipers shoot well out of rifled barrels that shoot JSB pellets well. So a .25 Marauder, Condor, ect. all shoot the swaged bullets well with their factory barrels. All bets may be off with FX’s smooth twist barrel. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    The way Airforce valves work makes them very prone to valve lock. The back pressure from the weight of the projectile has a lot to do with how much an Airforce valve opens up. A 290 gr bullet at 3000 psi will likely open up all the way, while a 145 gr roundball will likely have valve lock at 3000 psi on the same spring tension setting. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    I have a 2016 .25 Condor that has the high flow factory valving but not the most up-to-date factory valving. Quite honestly it likes all pellets and slugs I have given it from as light as the 25 gr JSBs to as heavy as 60 grain cast slugs from NOE, with power ranges set from 45fpe to 110fpe. It loves all Neilsens I have tried. I think the LW barrels that Condors have are super. 

    A big trick to keeping the Airforce guns accurate is to make sure the spin loc tank is tightened down very tight. If you can loosen it by torquing it with your hand with heavy pressure, it isn't tight enough. It isn't enough to just trust the set screw to keep it in place. If the tank isn't super tight, the gun's frame will flex during the shot and you'll never get a consistent POI. On one of my Texans I am experimenting with blue loc-titing the tank in place and that seems to have stiffened it up well. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    If you’re into camping, some tins make great DIY alcohol stoves. 

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Bullfrog.
    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    I think a lot of it is what it is. 

    Airguns are an industry, and there’s strong ties between the industry and the youtube personalities they sponsor. It may be that what’s happening is that some channels quickly plug other channels that share the same sponsors and their subscriber base all jumps in together. 

    Its a double-edged sword. I remember when Youtube cracked down on Airgun channels some of the big names circled wagons around each other and left others out to dry. I’m sure eliminating competition and corporate ties was a motivation for at least some of the selection as to who got saved and who didn’t. Youtube listens to money. 

    I’m glad to be a maverick that isn’t owned by anyone in the industry and speaks my mind freely. Yet I’m also glad there is an industry that has a financial motivation to protect airgunners’ rights. One has to accept the bad with the good. 

    The true bad guy is Youtube. And I’m glad I didn’t grovel before them when the bans happened. I called them out instead, while many of the more popular airgun channels begged. And yes, I paid the price. My popular airgun videos were blacklisted and traffic has been cut off to them. But that tells me all the more that Youtube isn’t an entity who’s rear is worth kissing. 

    I dig your videos Dana. I know what it feels like to pour everything into a video only for some dweeb to flag it and another dweeb at Youtube to label it something silly like “terroristic.” But that’s the price we have to pay so long as dweebs are running the show. Who knows what change may happen in the near or far future that causes the algorithm to be turned on its head and what is now blacklisted becomes popular again?

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/trophy-hunters-bones-turned-mush-18987291

     

    This just further proves my point. Nothing makes this man a “trophy hunter” except that he takes pictures of his kills sometimes and he hunts something that seems exotic. 

    Its all anti-hunting spin. Don’t fall for it. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Its your choice to make, go with whatever your comfortable with. 

    But for the record, that picture of the ladies posing with their doe is an awesome picture and something to be proud of. I see nothing wrong with it. Its very tasteful and looks like a great preservation of a wonderful memory for those ladies. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Figure that projectile weight on the Texans have a lot to do with how much air it moves per shot. A Texan shooting a 145 grain roundball at 900fps will be a lot quieter than the same gun shooting a 290 grain slug at 900fps. 

    That’s one way db tests may be misleading. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Run along little antelope. I set you free from this trap you’ve caught yourself in. Until we meet again!

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    I answered your post, showing how your definition of bushmeat was provably wrong, with the implication that you’ve adopted the anti-hunting negative connotation for bushmeat, which proves my point that we hunters have been influenced by the jargon of the anti-hunting movement in ways we don’t even realize  

    The position you’re in is either to concede you were wrong to get in a tussy over what I said about how the term “bush meat” is used by antis to implicate all sustenance hunting overseas, because I’ve been proven correct. Or alternatively, offer concrete facts to proves my position is wrong after all. 

    What you don’t get to do is deflect and say “just re-read my posts.” That’s a cop out. I destroyed your point about bushmeat. Unless you can undestroy it and destroy my own. Thru facts. That’s how debating works. 

    And you don’t get to barge into a place where you just registered where we don’t know you from an anti and throw out garbage buzzwords like “group think” and “straw man” in the wrong contexts and not get called out for it.

    If you want credibility, you have to earn it. And you can start by stop deflecting and actually revisit what you’ve said about “bushmeat” in light of the accepted definition, that it includes all meat harvested in the tropics. From which you have to admit their is no way to distinguish African bushmeat from American venison or from Native American hunting of yesteryear. And that’s really what you’re avoiding. You don’t want to answer that point. Which is fine if you want to walk away, but you don’t get to swagger out of it with the same chip on your shoulder when you walked in when you picked the fight. 

     

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    You’ve done picked a fight you can’t win and now you want to run away. 

    I’ll let you… like a little African antelope set free from a bush meat hunter’s snare. 

    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    No straw men here. I simply stated my position on trophy hunting and that the term “bush meat” has been similarly created and thrown out there by antis to have negative connotation when it shouldn’t, you got mad and attacked me personally and made some claims about what “bush meat” means. I’ve refuted your claims with facts about what “bush meat” really means, and now the ball is in your court to refute the facts I’ve asserted if I’m wrong.

    And my overall point still stands. Just as the term “bush meat” has been put out there with negative connotation by antis to make it seem that “bush meat” is a bad thing, when all it really means is “sustenance hunting” in the third world, so “trophy hunting” has also been manipulated. When hunters use the term “trophy hunting” we historically mean it to mean hunting only to take a physical trophy off the animal, which we generally frown upon. Antis have made the term to mean any exotic (meaning non-Western) big game hunting. They want us to automatically see an African game animal killed in a picture and call it “trophy hunting” because of the negative connotation trophy hunting has. They want other hunters to frown on African hunting as if killing an antelope on Africa is somehow morally different than killing a whitetail buck in Ohio.

    Its not wrong to hunt African or other exotic big game so long as the hunting is done in a sustainable manner. Where “trophy hunting” has come to really mean “African big game hunting,” trophy hunting is not wrong in and of itself.   

    • This reply was modified 11 months ago by Bullfrog.
    Link

    Bullfrog
    Participant
    Member

    Read what I wrote carefully. I didn’t call “you” racist. I said “us.” As in us in the West as in how we dictate impractical standards to the third world. We tell them what they can and cannot do with their own animals from afar when we aren’t the ones needing to hunt some obscure African varmint to feed or our families or have to live with elephants destroying our crops or lions ripping our children out of their beds in the middle of the night. 

    So what say you now that I’ve shown how broad the definition of “bush meat” is? Can you distinguish an African killing a small antelope to feed is family and me killing a Florida deer to feed mine? I don’t think you can.

    So why when the African does it, is it called “bush meat” with a negative connotation, and when I do it, its just “hunting?”

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 11 months ago by Bullfrog.
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 400 total)