It seems as though when I shoot at starlings, they don't seem hit without a head shot or a straight up shot through the body. I can shoot little one inch nodules out of the tree but shots at starlings at the same distance, and they fly away. Could it be that they are just being drilled like a "laser" and then flying off and dying. I shoot them with Gamo match at a muzzle velocity of 825 fps and the distance is normally between 20 and 30 feet.
I realize I could just be missing, but it just doesn't seem likely i would miss that often. I have been shooting all my life nearly and I still go through a tin a week or so of pellets.
I am sure my next rifle will be a .22 though. just for this reason.
Re: Hits on starlings with .177? they fly, fly away.
June 13 2009, 9:27 PM
I'm definitely of the belief that there is a bit of a 'magic zone' with airguns and different prey. Some rascals are just simply a bit tougher than others and will take a direct hit through the heart and both lungs and then fly off 60 yrds before crashing down to the ground. Upon inspection, you'll see that it was a perfectly executed shot and a complete passthrough, while others will be dead on impact. But there is more going on than just that.....
I personally believe that the 'magic zone' i'm talking about is a specific velocity and energy and impact that diminishes the passthrough a bit and allows the pellet to dump most of it's remaining energy into the quarry to create a more instant 'knock down'. In other words, so what if a rifle shoots with 20 fpe vs. another that shoots only 7, it's what is delivered to the prey that counts and i'm not just talking about the fpe at impact, i'm talking about a powercurve I believe that exists according to physics whereby once the velocity and energy drops down past a certain point for a given caliber, the pellet delivers almost all of that remaining energy into the prey and a better result occurs.
For example, if you have a rifle that shoots 20 fpe at the muzzle and 16fpe on impact on a prey at 25 yrds, you would think that you just delivered 16 fpe to the prey, right? Nope, that round may have passed through that prey like a hot razor through butter and only delivered 2 fpe of 'shock' to it. The prey is dead and doesn't even know it, but manages to fly off and bleed out in the air 50 yrds away. Conversely, hit that same prey with that same rifle at 50 yrds and lets say that rifle is known to deliver 12 fpe at 50 yrds. Well, I would bet that on impact, that round from the same rifle 'actually delivers' 8-9 of those remaining 12 FPE TO THE PREY, so the result is a much more 'crunching' effect and more instant knockdown and death.
To give you an example, I can hit a starling with my .22 caliber Diana 54, shooting 14.3 g pellets at nearly 860 fps at the muzzle(24FPE) from 25 yrds and the thing will fly away and I can watch it get 50 to even 80 yrds away, in flight, very high in the sky, then all of a sudden fold it's wings and drop from the air as if it instantly gave up the ghost. Upon inspection, the .22 round was a perfect chest cavity shot, entry and exit.
At the same time, I can hit a starling from 25 yrds with my R7 and it will drop instantly as if Zeus just rammed a lightening bolts up it's arse. Very weird.
But now, extrapolate that Diana 54 shot out to 60+yrds(especially at 80-90 yrds) and starling hits not only drop them instantly, but you can hear a MUCH more audible 'CRUSH' sound and they birds actually appear to get 'knocked back' or kind of 'flip' backwards several inches from the impact. Very cool to see.
I've seen the same similar scenario on squirrels and rabbits.
So I believe that the singular statements that many airgunners make like ".22 is best for hunting" or ".22 for fur, .177 for feathers" or "you must have such and such fpe for ________ quarry on impact" are not entirely true statements.
I think that for a given caliber, speed at impact and of course fpe, different outcomes will take place and we have to learn that for various distances with our individual rifles.
The good thing is, as an airgunner increases his/her airgun collection, a different gun can be selected for specific hunting trips and purposes and yield better results in the field if one knows what their approximate shooting distances are going to be.
My R7 is my go-to rifle for the starling, squirrel or rabbit shots at close to medium ranges. My HW50S and R9 rock at 30-60 yrds and i've even taken starlings out to 80 yrds with both. And if it's a starling or crow waaaay out there, past 80 yrds, the Diana 54 is my .338 Lapua Magnum Sniper rifle for the job! Wink
My 15 ft/lb rifle makes a clean kill at 40 yards on Starlings, at 30 ft. they fly off and then drop after flying 50 yards....for a starling at your ranges you need something that shoots around 600 fps at the muzzle and will shoot wadcutters. The smack from the WC's will stop them in their tracks...
Re: Hits on starlings with .177? they fly, fly away.
June 14 2009, 6:09 AM
I don't have any expertise in this area, but can offer an antidotal story that is amusing.
The sun, moon and stars were lined up the day I caught a crow sitting on my balcony railing and the door was open. I grabbed my trusty old Sheridan from the closet, aimed carefully, fired and the crow flew away. My wife laughed at my miss from 20 feet. Sometime later my wife was talking with a neighbor as was being told a story of a crow landing on their pool deck and falling over dead!
Man I sure feel better now. I mean I won the shooting matches at Camp Pendleton (M16-A1's and .45's)my last year in the corps and now I can't hit a Starling at 20 feet? That makes me feel worse than the Prostate/Viagra commercials!
1) New .22
2) Heavier/different type ammo
3) New .177 that shoots slower
4) Back up
5) Different Aim Points (head shots - you already said you have that accuracy)
6) Practice (sounds like I need it, you don't)
I guess I will try for more head shots. I have to be very very carefull about what is beyond my target, I only have a few "free fire zones" in my yard. Many times birds are in range but between me and my neighbors roof, I am sure he would not like a .177 cal leak.
Tonight we go to houston for two weeks. when I get back I plan to buy a new rifle. Only because I want one, they have a model 34 pro compact minus the scope for 189.0 over at cabela's.
I also know where I can get a brand new model 54 with an RWS300 scope for 447.00, cal .177 I am seriously considering buying it, but I really have my heart set on a Beeman R9 or HW50 or 80. In .22 cal.
No hurry though, every time I let myself get in a hurry, I make choices I regret.
after shooting a couple hundred starlings a year since the '60's, I can say without any reservation that you are missing the "off button". Sorry.
Regardless of what some will say, a high powered airgun is ALWAYS a better killer than a lowered power one. At any range. To say otherwise ignores basic physics.
A larger caliber makes the "off button" a tiny bit bigger, and have often noticed starlings wounded with a 177 that are "runners", often just lay there and die when shot in the same place with a 22.
Sorry, I disagree, 'those basic physics' are wrong. ____FPE at impact does not = quarry received that _____FPE at impact. The only way it would is if the pellet stopped in the quarry. And the funny thing about this 'off button' is the i've shot the entire backs of skulls off of starlings with headshots and they were still alive(this is because the life support system is in the hind brain and midbrain, closer to the base of the skull/neck and not in the regular skull like on us humans), limping and running on the ground a little ways.
Like I also mentioned, this happens with my .22 cal Diana 54 running at 24fpe at the muzzle. Some of these impacts where at 20 yrds and if you do the math, that was around 19 fpe at impact. The trouble is, the pellet goes THROUGH the critter, it doesn't stop inside, so the critter doesn't receive 19 fpe. It probably only received 1-2, the rest of the energy cruised on at 700 fps for _____yrds. Almost ALL of these quarry were found with perfect location shots to the upper chest, through the neck, through the lower chest, etc... didn't matter, only a few would drop instantly.
Like I said, the moment the range stretched out to past 50 yrds, they dropped like they were hit by a 98 mph fastball. But the R7 would drop them at 25 yrds instantly, with almost never a limp away, ever. That's because the critter got almost ALL of those 6-7 fpe.
And what I've got to say is going to sound very similar to other posts because I've quickly noticed very similar things now that I've shot more than just a M34...
My M34 shot in the 11-12 fpe range with JSB 8.4gr and my M52 shoots in the 17 fpe range with Kodiaks, both are .177
I aim for the chest rather than head-shots and I've quickly learned that my M52 doesn't drop birds in their tracks unless I hit the heart. They often make it 10-20 feet as if they are unharmed and then suddenly it's like their switch is turned off. On the other hand, my M34 would drop them in their place with any solid chest shot with virtually no movement. The sound of impact says it all and a lot of the time I can't even hear anything with my M52 because the pellet is zipping right through it, while the M34 produces a loud whack!
While the 52 proves to be quite effective on larger game, I wish I held on to my 34 for the feathers,
your 54 at 19fpe is dumping BUNCHES more energy inside the quarry, compared to the R7 at any range, even if the 54 pellet blows out the other side, and the R7 pellet doesn't as much.
To take it a step further, my 27 fpe 22 cal pcp is so much better killer than an R7 class rifle, at any range, that there is no comparison. A pellet that hits with a loud pop, and tears up the quarry transfers a lot more energy to the target than a wimpy R7 that pokes a little hole.
You do not lower velocity and increase killing power.
I shoot rotten tomatoes each fall with a Diana 350 at almost 1100 fps for max effect, not 550 fps.
And a botched head shot has little or nothing to do with this discussion.
Re: Nope, like I said bad (incorrect) physics.....
June 14 2009, 9:27 PM
I found those same weird things with close shots, even more so with my 52 .177.My solution was very easy , I use crow magnum pellets up to 25 yds and wadcuters up to 40.No more problems.
For the 350 .177 it was a little different ,it almost makes no difference between CPH and crow magnum ,squirrels go nowhere, the only diference is CPH almost always go thru at any distance.
With my 30 fpe .22, the only diet is CP. At close range they make a mess.I keep a collection of pellets recovered from game for the last 10 years ,and at 30fpe at the muzzle,CP deform quite a lot on squirrels at ranges up to 15 yds.After that, they tend to pass thru up to 35-40 yds ,when the remaining energy ,I gess ,is not enough to punch thru.
It was a little contradicting , but it is a combination of gun+pellet+prey+shot placement, very hard to reproduce enough times to draw a definitive conclussion.
One more reason to own yet another gun.We all know there is not such a thing as to many airguns.Just make sure that the "new one" is not to different from the "old one", that way she won't notice, just wood and black steel.
Re: Nope, like I said bad (incorrect) physics.....
June 15 2009, 6:14 AM
With that logic, then why were hollowpoints for any type of gun invented? They were invented to STOP or SLOW down the penetration factor of the round and allow the projectile to expand it's energy into the quarry and not zip through. That's the exact reason why that Diana 54 that I talked about that allows more limp-aways at 25 yrds, despite it being a cannon springer will completely stop the quarry in it's tracks when a flat wadcutter or a JSB Predator is loaded. Those pellets don't penetrate like a hard Crosman Premeire. THey smack, expand and as a result, dump their energy in.
Re: Nope, like I said bad (incorrect) physics.....
June 15 2009, 12:30 PM
I agree wadcutters are very underrated, and very deadly.Thats my ""go to"" pellet under 30 yards.
I think the 177's are just ice picking through the target ,the same as if you shot a BB. all penatration no expansion.
Ive hit squrrils with them and I think some died before they hit the ground.
try a wadcutter to the spinal colum ,thats my favorite shot , base of the skull. a little high or a little low isnt going to matter a whole hell of a lot.
Re: Nope, like I said bad (incorrect) physics.....
June 16 2009, 7:32 AM
Incidentally, here's a great recent post about the capabilities of the "weak little" R7 as a small game hunter in .177. He's dropping these things like bricks:
pellets pellets ..,i have a D54 0.22 n' it's a great thing to own ,,lately i had a chance to try this kind of pellets made by Spanish gamo "expander" I think these are the best from Gamo for hunting, especially birds, where ever penetration is a problem
they are just great .,, if u hit it it's most of the time down!!
you should try them they are some thing n' my d54 just love them!!
they have them in 0.177
i hope this helps.,
keep up the good work n' God bless
Jeff said: "You do not lower velocity and increase killing power". and I will add "that is physics 101 for you" Isaac Newton WHERE ARE YOU lol
but you increase the pellet weight and decrease velocity and it DOES matter .177 in 10 gr. @ 850 FPS VS .22 in 15 gr. @ 780 pps and your kinetic energy raises, do the math
the thack is not the same
I go with Jeff on this one and maybe we both are wrong including Newton, that makes 3 of us wrong
warren
and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"
1 A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
3 For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(the other one is the one that gets the most traction in physics is F=ma; if you are good, you can derive most other mass/speed/distance equations from this one - I just couldn't think of how to apply it here).
Anyhow, 1) the .177 pellet is staying in motion and not transfering much of its energy because of too little resistance in the starling.
3) If the starling were a steel plate, all of the energy of the .177 would be transferred to it.
So we are trying to transfer more energy to the starling without the ability to change its density so it can absorb more. Bigger surface area is the key: .22 is obvious. Wadcutter is as big as you can get for a given caliber. Hollow point makes a bigger surface area when it hits. Heavier/slower gets more time to transfer the energy as it passes through. The combination of heavier and hollow point transfers the most energy with the gun he has. Ergo sir knight: Crow Magnums.
study the kinetic energy of a 10 grain pellet at 800 fps and 700 with 16 grain regardless of caliber, it's called STOPPING power
maybe you would like to be hit by a Ford Focus at 80 miles per hour or a train at 50 miles, who transfers more ENERGY??
big caliber at slow speed transfer's Knock down power, low caliber at high speed does not cause the wear and tear in flesh that big one does
get hit by a M16 5.5 MM bullet in the chest and you might survive but get hit with a .50 cal and the exit hole will be bigger than your head, by the way the 5.5 is screaming at you while the .50 is picking Daisie's while it goes along to the target
the transfer of energy is by the MASS energy out-put of the projectile not the speed, weight matters
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. RIGHT, if I push 100 pounds and I weight 200 it will be inches but if it is 10 pounds the opposite reaction will be in feet's
Warren
PS: I still believe in Newton's Laws"
and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"
All of the Laws of physics, theories, etc that have been tossed about here have also been dabated inthe powder burner world for years and years and years...No one is right and no one is wrong. In my mind there is a balance:
a 5.56 mm full metal jacket makes a 22 cal hole and slows very little on its journey through a chest.
a 5.56 mm full soft or hollow point expands, makes a big hole, and just might not exit.
a 50 cal full metal jacket makes a bigger hole (than a 22) and wont slow down noticably in a a human chest
a 50 cal soft or hollow point would slow a bit more, but probably not stay in the chest.
All of the physics laws here apply. Momentum, equal and opposite force, blah, blah, blah. However there is a balance when it comes to stopping power. Surely a 50 cal hole is more damaging than a 22 in any target. For two bullets/pellets of the same caliber, one designed to expand will make a bigger hole will do more damage than a pointed one that doesnt expand. For two pellets of a different design (flat or hollow point vs. pointed) in the same caliber, the flat will penetrate less effectivley, and therefore slow more, and therefore transfer more energy to the target. A rifle with more muzzle energy has the POTENTIAL to do more damage, but only if it transfers the energy to the right place on the target. Lets add that a small fraction of an inch difference in point of impact on a small game target such as a starling can drastically affect the lethality of the hit. You begin to mix all of these up and - Who Knows: A slower .177 might be more effective than a fast .22 that doesnt expand. Going back to the powder world - Large game hunters either like a heavy, large caliber projectile that penetrates to the vitals and beyond, or a screamer that expands and makes a big hole, perhaps stopping within the game. Some like a heavy expander that makes a big hole in the game, and a big exit wound to help with the bleeding out (and tracking).
In pellet guns, where expansion is limited, velocities are slow, I tend to favor the flat pellets that penetrate less (transfering more energy per distance pentrated, more whack) combined with a bigger hole (.22 cal.) That being said, I cant argue with the guy who has made feather clouds out of starlings with a lower powered .177. Clearly his velocity, pellet choice and shot placement are effective and cant be argued with.
Just my .02. No one will win this arguement and no one will be wrong. and the discussion will come up again and again and again and again. And we'll all jump in becuase we love our sport and have our own opinions. Good Luck to all!
from a solid angled or straight on hit and a mild to wild or wide angled
glancing or grazing hit. Throwing a brick at a starling or blackbird
probably most any hit would bring it down most of the time.
I may be wrong but IMO there are no super animals (including man) on
planet Earth.
There is probably a difference in the problem we are trying to solve also. Bigger caliber was put forth as the better solution (even by the OP). I focused my posts on what might be done with the existing air rifle, keeping whatever angle, etc. hits that the OP was getting as a constant.
Others have been dealing with a variety of weaponry ranging from sniper rifles to trains. Although I don't think many starlings get taken by train, it certainly does represent a lot of moving energy! There is also another approach that deals with point and angle of impact.
If we are not all working on the same problem, it is not too difficult to imagine the answers would be different.
Predators. Harry (Yrrah) showed the results of extensive Predator pellet tests on what look like magpies (Australian birds). Reported that kills are near-instantaneous. No worry about pass-through with these.
Just as a foot note. I was told by my D.I. in boot camp that .50 cal weapons are not to be used on people because of the damage it does. he told us that we can only use it against equipment. But then he mentioned that a belt buckle is a piece of equipment.
Yes you cannot fire a .50 cal against a person but he "said"
you cannot shoot a combatant with a 50 cal. because of the Geneva Convention but back at Fort Dix, 1970 and in BC my D.I. said the same thing (the belt buckle) is a piece of equipment LOL
warren
and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"
There's a tremondous number of variables here and you can't mix them all up and expect to get a consensus on the answer. Limit to a single caliber, same velocity, same weight, same exact angle and point of impact, and vary only pellet design, and now we have a discussion! Same everything as above except vary velocity and use the same pellet design and now we have another discussion. Change two or more variables, now we have an argument, or the potential makings of one. Vary all of them and its all out war!!!
Just kidding on the argument and war references! Good discussion here as always!
All this talk about kinetic energy and such is really a moot point. If you want to anchor anything where it is with a airgun from a Red Ryder to whatever wonder gun you own you have to put one in the brain box. Shot placement anywhere else with a .177 or .22 air gun and you leave yourself open to "walking wounded" that sure as the dickens will expire at the doorstep of a PETA supporter!
If there is a chance with your prey walking or flying off and expiring where you might have some explaining to do my advice would be not to take the shot. You can kind of let her rip in the field but I never take anything but head shots with my air rifles when engaged in "back yard hunting".
We owe it to our sense of marksmanship to despatch quarry cleanly.
Therefore head shots only, taken at a sensible range the weapon and shooter is capable of.
"It seems as though when I shoot at starlings, they don't seem hit without a head shot or a straight up shot through the body. I can shoot little one inch nodules out of the tree but shots at starlings at the same distance, and they fly away. Could it be that they are just being drilled like a "laser" and then flying off and dying. I shoot them with Gamo match at a muzzle velocity of 825 fps and the distance is normally between 20 and 30 feet.
I realize I could just be missing, but it just doesn't seem likely i would miss that often. I have been shooting all my life nearly and I still go through a tin a week or so of pellets.
I am sure my next rifle will be a .22 though. just for this reason."
and take your PERSONALITIES off this discussion
head shot or through the body??? is what he wrote
then we come with a different cal. .177 in 800 fps or 700 in .22
did he state the brand?? of the air gun, regardless of the brand 800 or 700 fps means the same since the pellet is capable of those fps in a GAMO, RWS, HW etc, etc, and etc.... but what about accuracy???
carefull with those fps #'s and the Kill's
warren
and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"
My gosh, how did great-grand dad survive with his open sighted guns and no chronometer or Berkley Physics Lab to number crunch for him? It's a wonder poor Daniel Boone could hit a mules' *** without first mapping out his shot and then running a dozen or so probable scenarios through a CRAY 9.
You are shooting birds. First - they don't have the same physiology as mammals. Their nerve structure is different. (Do you think a chipmunk can stand on a steel rod at -10 F without suffering some frost bite?) You put a shot into the boiler room of a squirrel or rat and then expect it to have the exact same effect on a bird? Not likely. Each species or group of animals has a different physiology. Some are MUCH more robust than others. (Grizzlies, for example, have been know to fight on for minutes after hear-shattering shots.) Second - If your gun hits a starling squarely and it doesn't immediately drop dead, why is that a bad thing? You want an instant kill? Get as shotgun at close range. Not all hunting is perfect. If your air gun will cleanly dispatch a starling within thirty seconds, it is probably doing exactly what it was design to do. Lordy, if "dead in its tracks" is your main criterion, don't ever take up bow hunting!!!
Hunting is much like medicine these days. People still get sick and die in the hospital because medicine simply doesn't have all the answers. Expectations seem to well exceed actual performance for a variety of reasons. Theoretical limits are well and good so long as you remember the word "theoretical".
Red, I think it is coming to this(airguns with mounted calculators). Sometimes I worry about some of these guys lol.Amazing all these post on ballistics, velocity, angles etc. just to shoot a damn grackle. One guy even takes the time to figure the cost of guns using how many Pennies @ fps.
I don't know about all of the equations etc. posted on shooting this little bird. Personally I just pick up a gun, aim and shoot. Seems to work pretty good. Last week I dropped about 6 or 8 with a little light powered IZZY. Some longer shots with a light HW 30 with open sights. I guess I should take time to learn how fast a train goes compared to something or whatever, just do not really have the time or care to learn.
dave@vabch
Ps I will let you in on a little secret. If you yell "FREEZE STARLING"! right before you shoot, they will stand perfectly still for you.
Actually Dave you should yell "STOP" instead of "FREEZE". Some birds, like some criminals, may not understand you wish them to stop when you yell freeze. At least that is how LEO's are taught in Indiana...or was taught in 1993. I sure hope I have not started another argument!
in order to get some idea of what combination of pellet and velocity seems to work best and maybe find some simple method to show that potential without the need for ballistic putty, Berkly, NASA ..
how would you describe the effect of your most reliable combinations at the typical hunting distance on a standard 3" x 4"(75mm x 100mm) tin can, just curious if similar effects were found regardless of caliber, pellet, distance, power and gun
does it
1 penetrate through both sides of the tin cleanly
2 penetrate through both sides finger nail size denting to the tin around the holes
3 penetrate through both sides denting the tin heavily around the holes
4 penetrate through 1 side denting the other and almost folding the tin
result no. 2
my best combination was 52,.22 bisley magnum 21gr, approx 17 ftlbs, 30-40m, head shot rabbits fell over without so much as a twitch, seemed way more humane than even hv .22rf hollow points
for that test try to add water to the tin cans an empty can has no volume but a can with water absorbs the initial hit and dissipates the energy inside the can
front impact size will not be the same as the exit
try it at 20 , 30 and 40 yards the results will not be the same but penetration will be assimetrical
just put out some soda cans filled with water at these distances and see what happens
what is interesting is that I can recover and shoot again SOME of these pellets, no wear and tear on them
then put 4 or 5 cans lined up in front of you and shoot them at 20-30 yards, see what happens to each can with the entry and exit holes
Re: Hits on starlings with .177? they fly, fly away.
July 10 2009, 12:08 AM
Kill shots aren't always instantly fatal.I usually shoot a HW80K/.22 full powered and have had many instances[last week even] of blackbirds taking centre of chest hits at 25 yards with JSB Jumbo Exacts and flying 20 yards then dropping dead.I shot 23 pigeons and most did a death spiral short flight.The JSB predators kill quicker but I've yet to recover one [complete passthroughs]even on bodyshot grouse/pigeons at 30 yards.Pencil sized holes in and out.Five more pigeons and a headshot skunk the next day and no I didn't autopsy the skunk .Predator in the earhole lights out but it likely rattled right on through............................I throatshot a miserable crow that was waking me up at 0600 with a .177 Hungarian rifle in the top of a blue spruce then answered a phonecall.Talked for 5 min and plop he dropped on the lawn................Deer can go 100 yards with no heart alla .270 Nothing written in stone............Harold
There are very few real "lights out" hunting shots. It depends upon the quarries physical makeup and constitution. Predators or animals which fight regularly have systems which react against wounds. (Heck, so do people where wounds are initially "compartmentalized" so the victim can fight/escape.) What is most important is how long (if at all) does the quarry take to die? If within thirty seconds, that's pretty decent from a humane perspective. If half an hour, then no.
If you want birds to die on contact, then you really need to go up in firepower. But, at that point, it really isn't sporting. For example, the English have a hunting law called "giving the bird a fair lead" (or something to that effect). This is to prevent someone with a 12 gauge shooting a game bird under ten yards or so, thus turning it into a pillow fight instead of something fit for the pot.
Okay, I have been doing alot of practicing since started this thread I replace my scope and mount base and rings, shooting nice tight consistant off hand groups with RWS basic diablo pellets in my .177 model 34.
Now for some reason the starlings don't spend alot of time in the oak tree in my yard which would put my shot distance at about 20 yards max. but a nearby evergreen had a starling sittin on an exposed branch almost at the top of this very tall tree. I rested my hand held my rifle lightly, squeezed off a shot and a split second later heard what I believe germans call a kugelslag (something like that). The starling tottered a bit, held on then fell. Quite satisfying indeed.
Re: Hits on starlings with .177? they fly, fly away.
October 6 2009, 1:57 PM
We have a bird here in the mountains that I consider a pest and have shot a few, later to find out I am not supposed to, so now I leave them alone. But they are either tough or wired different from anything else. I have hit them with .177 from 30 feet and have it fly away 20 yards then drop. Then shot a couple with .22 cals and the feathers fly but the bird still takes flight gets about 15 to 20 yards off then drops. Of cours a head shot and they just fall over. Body shot to just about any other bird seems to be an almost instant drop.
I have to agree that the energy needs to be retained by the target. Many years ago while hunting Gophers I noticed that many crawled away after being hit with high velocity hollow point.22 shells. You could see the bullet kick up dirt out in the pasture way past the Gopher. So one day I bring the old Remington Targetmaster single shot and some short hollow points. That ended the crawlers. It sounded like they were being hit with a brick were as the High velocity hollow points passed through without much effect. Others were skeptical until we hunted together and they saw the results. I have experienced the same thing with low and high powered air guns on smaller targets. I'm a firm believer that at least 80% of the energy delivered by the projectile needs to be retained by the target to make a clean and effective kill with lower powered weapons. All of the above information has been aquired over the past 50 years of shooting and hunting and is in reference to torso shots only. There are options at the extreme other end of the spectrum that are even more effective like the now popular .17 and .223 cal loads. But these are so far beyond air rifles that they don't warrant discussion here.
Chris
