For each animal there is a energy (ft lb) needed to take down the animal. But is energy really needed? I believe shot placement is better than having enough energy to take a animal. I look up how many energy need to take a deer. They say a deer needs at least 1000 ft lb to kill it. But Ive buddies who shot a full size white tail deer with their marauder .22 cal with only about 27 ft lb. Head shot and it just dropped.
What we know about energy on game.
- Thread starter Airmanator
- Start date
I can't see anything ethical in someone attempting to use a .22 caliber air rifle to hunt deer, plus I doubt that its even legal...
Upvote 0
While I don't know the answer I will say that that deer hunting (and by 'hunting' I mean legal rather than poaching) is regulated by all states as far as I know and that a .22 at 27FPE is is on the wrong side without much question..... On the flip side, a perfect shot from a rather low power airgun (like though the eye into the brain) can be deadly. So can you kill a deer? Probably. Legal, probably not.
Sorry if this response offends you/anyone. I have a terrible problem with deer damage in the fall but I also know that my state hunts down folks for shooting deer outside the legal bounds....
Sorry if this response offends you/anyone. I have a terrible problem with deer damage in the fall but I also know that my state hunts down folks for shooting deer outside the legal bounds....
Upvote 0
About legal or not. That depends on where it's taken. In the state it's illegal but in other countries it's not. I wasn't debating on legal or not but more on how much energy is really needed to take down a animal vs having good shot placement. Imo shot placement is more important than having enough energy to take a animal.
Upvote 0
Well, energy alone is not all-telling when it comes to determining ethical killing potential, but, it's probably the best guideline for writing general hunting laws and regulations. Certainly, shot placement is paramount, but, none of us are perfect, and we sometimes miss our mark. Often the miss is not by much, and close enough for a more powerful cartridge to make the difference between a humane kill and a crippled animal that dies a lingering death and is never harvested. Assuming the individual is legally hunting, I can't imagine why a .22 air rifle would be the weapon of choice. Head shots are problematic in deer hunting for several reasons, and the heart/lung area is almost always preferred. If a brain shot is missed by a couple of inches, you have a terribly wounded animal that will likely not be recovered. Miss the center of the heart/lung area by the same amount, and it's still a very lethal shot. Some folks will always push the limits, and, sometimes the one great success story is is outweighed by numerous dismal failures (which might not be discussed). My thought, don't worry about energy charts, there are many proven reliable big game cartridges, take your pick and then choose the proper bullet construction for the intended animal.
Upvote 0
Of course your suspicion is correct. Otherwise archery wouldn't be doable.
What matters is the damage done to the vitals. Energy for airgun purposes is only relevant to ensure proper projectile expansion and/or penetration thru the vitals. There is no hydrostatic shock***. Not at 150fpe, not at 400fpe. The only reason to question 150fpe is to ensure it will shoot thru the vitals of your target and make a big hole when it does. If it does, its a winner just as much as 400fpe.
Much of the "X amount of energy" needed statements made on the internet are just that, internet statements perpetuated by word-of-mouth to such a degree they've become conventional wisdom, backed by little or no real-world experience that people have tested for themselves to see the truth of. They just parrot whatever they read. Factor in appeals to morality and shaming from people that love to be holier-than-thou, and you get a recipe for the perpetration of myths that few ever try to challenge.
Now of course, anything will fall with a brain shot from any weapon. What regulations really need to be built around are the minimums for a good lung-shot. Most North American hunters take lung shots because they are higher-percentage shots.
*** I shot a hog in the head once where the airgun bullet when under the brain case and did not penetrate the brain case itself. There was hemorrhaging in the brain. That appeared to be hydrostatic shock happening from where the bullet expanded and changed the pressure in the head. But that was in the area immediate to the bullet strike. I would not anticipate any hydrostatic shock on a lung shot with any airgun.
Upvote 0
I agree on shot placement but a clean kill on a deer at that energy level would make for a very small POA. A non-clean kill.... different scenario, It may take hours/days/weeks.... I don't want to discuss legal or ethics so I'm out.... I'm not a fan of discussions on this kind of stuff when it's largely not within the laws of most folks who are reading the forum, including the powers that control these laws.
Upvote 0
Here in the state of North Carolina, in the United States, the only restriction on rifles used for hunting is that they cannot be fully automatic. All other rifles are legal to hunt with. I'm not weighing in on either side of an ethics discussion. I just wanted to point out that the legality varies from state to state, and country to country. As to the question of energy required to kill an animal: If you can put a chunk of lead in the brain, then that is enough energy to kill it. If you can put a hole in an animal's heart, then that is enough energy to kill it. The phrase "if you can" relies on your choice of weapon and your proficiency with that weapon. So, yes, I also think shot placement is more important than energy. Extra energy requirements come into play when one or both sides of that equation are lacking. When I say "lacking" I am not being judgemental. It's merely an honest assessment. Sometimes our weapon is not up to the task of putting lead where it needs to be. Sometimes the shooter is not up to the task.
James
James
Upvote 0
IDK. Lewis and Clark used a Girandoni air rifle 500fps .46 210gr Lead ball (117fpe) that was effective to 150 paces to take deer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle#Sources
I would think that an animal taking a heart/lung hit with a modern air gun is going to die from blood loss or asphyxiation depending on if both lungs are compromised or collapsed...not from hydrostatic shock. So as long as you get a double lung pass thru about 15-18 seconds until oxygen runs out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle#Sources
I would think that an animal taking a heart/lung hit with a modern air gun is going to die from blood loss or asphyxiation depending on if both lungs are compromised or collapsed...not from hydrostatic shock. So as long as you get a double lung pass thru about 15-18 seconds until oxygen runs out.
Upvote 0
So, are we to aspire to 1804 technology? Yes, it can be done. Does that mean it should be done? I see no reason for it.
Upvote 0
I've previously demonstrated a clean sub-150fpe deer harvest on video with a lung shot, using a non-expanding JSB pellet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKpmnqATzFA
She obviously died of the wound itself and not the energy dump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKpmnqATzFA
She obviously died of the wound itself and not the energy dump.
Upvote 0
The amount of energy needed to harvest game hasn't changed since 1804. ;-) When you read about the Girandoni, it was pretty amazing for its day. And while pushing a 210gr ball at 500fps might not sound like much, that's more momentum than the pellet used by Bullfrog in the above video to achieve a humane kill with almost complete penetration. -.339mo VS -.465mo.
I know I'll probably get pushback, but KE or fpe is just a prediction of the ability to do work. With relatively slow moving projectiles like arrows or airgun pellets/slugs, the momentum of an object is a better indicator of how well it resists slowing and how well it's going to penetrate.
Just for the record, I wasn't advocating using a .22 with 27fpe or shooting at deer at 150yds with an airgun.
I might be misinterpreting what your position is, but We'll have to agree to disagree on airguns for larger game as it seems that you do not approve? My state doesn't allow airgun use on anything but small game. If I could hunt deer with an airgun, it would be with an appropriate caliber ,shooting an adequate weight pellet/slug, generating enough energy for a double-lung pass-thru at 30yds or less..
Upvote 0
It's not so much that I don't approve, but more that I don't see the need, when much more effective cartridge rifles are readily available. Your position is reasonable, and if adhered to, would be an ethical hunting endeavor. If it were my decision, I would not prohibit the use of air guns for deer, as I favor the individual's right to make that decision. But, what I have seen and heard about too often, both with air rifles and archery is, lost and crippled game due to either lacking competence, or, simply error or bad judgment resulting in a shot taken at an extended range. In the excitement of the hunt, sometimes range determination is rushed or skipped, or, simply stretched too far. The same can be said of centerfire rifles, but the margin for error is much greater. Like most things, it can be done successfully, if done properly.
Upvote 0
Don’t even start that bs that bows and airguns wound more than centerfire guns, I have heard that so much it makes me sick. The reality of it is the archery hunts are before the rifle so they see wounded animals from the archery hunt. Try getting out after the rifle hunt and you will notice many animals wounded from center fires.
truth is a hole in the heart is dead no matter what the projectile. Personally though I have seen a fair number of animals at the vet clinic carrying around pellets in their ass and they continue to live perfectly healthy, I think if a poor shot is taken with an air gun the lack of kinetic energy allows the animal a better chance to heal from a poor placed shot. Where a poor hit from a centerfire will often result in infection and death after the animal has escaped the hunter.
fpe guidelines are there for those who are new to hunting or don’t understand their weapons very well. It can help them to figure out what would be a good starting point. If someone is experienced with their weapon and confident in their abilities then I say let them be.
Those guys obviously showed they could kill a deer with that setup so there’s no more discussion. I have taken large goats with a sub 12 fpe 177 as well as a blowgun, but not anybody can do that, hence why we have the fpe guidelines.
truth is a hole in the heart is dead no matter what the projectile. Personally though I have seen a fair number of animals at the vet clinic carrying around pellets in their ass and they continue to live perfectly healthy, I think if a poor shot is taken with an air gun the lack of kinetic energy allows the animal a better chance to heal from a poor placed shot. Where a poor hit from a centerfire will often result in infection and death after the animal has escaped the hunter.
fpe guidelines are there for those who are new to hunting or don’t understand their weapons very well. It can help them to figure out what would be a good starting point. If someone is experienced with their weapon and confident in their abilities then I say let them be.
Those guys obviously showed they could kill a deer with that setup so there’s no more discussion. I have taken large goats with a sub 12 fpe 177 as well as a blowgun, but not anybody can do that, hence why we have the fpe guidelines.
Upvote 0
There’s a difference between legality and capability. That out of the way, & imparting zero opinions on the subject, I will say that I have explored this subject before and have mixed feelings/thoughts on this.
Tim Wells claims on his video to have taken a pretty big bear using a pretty sharp, but small, dart.
Back a couple years ago when I started exploring airguns, I saw this guy on YT take a deer using a beefed up .22 Marauder with a vitals shot (lungs/heart) wish I had a link, but that shot was very impressive. That deer went down like a mosquito had bitten him and then decided to take a dirt nap.
Then there are tons of folk out there taking pigs with head shots using even .22 springers.
Tim Wells claims on his video to have taken a pretty big bear using a pretty sharp, but small, dart.
Back a couple years ago when I started exploring airguns, I saw this guy on YT take a deer using a beefed up .22 Marauder with a vitals shot (lungs/heart) wish I had a link, but that shot was very impressive. That deer went down like a mosquito had bitten him and then decided to take a dirt nap.
Then there are tons of folk out there taking pigs with head shots using even .22 springers.
Upvote 0