"INTO THE WILD" A QUESTION ABOUT THE BOOK

Hi everyone, i think i've got some questions for you.

In the book "into the wild" Chris had a .22 semi-auto rifle, and with it he managed to kill every living thing running around in the woods out there. Even a moose or carribu, that is big game is it not? how the hell did he kill animals like that with a stupid .22? You think he had to track them for days?

It's not that easy to hunt is it? and tracking game is not easier. Maybe he shot them in the head or spine, but still then he would have had to get real close to them.

I just don't get it? help me understand this puzzel

If I had to choose one survival firearm it would, without a doubt, be a 22. Moose and Caribou are big game, and I would not choose to tackle one with a 22 but I have seen some big hogs fall to it, and in a survival situation would not hesitate. In the south where I am from the 22 is the poachers and jack lighters weapon of choice, and they kill alot of deer with it. Also this guy wasn't out hunting on the weekend he lived there and was hunting and foraging everyday. chris

Hi WEB!

Interesting, pepole i've talked to seem to think the .22 is for killing small birds. But how about the range?, how far is the .22 killing. The deer even, you would have to be a great shooter to make a deer fall dead right after a .22 shot?.

The risk of just injuring the animals seem bigg, and in a survival situation would it not be good to have a longer range rifle with a bit more power then .22

Why not .222 for example?

Due to the trajectory and power it would be sensible to limit the distance to less than 50 m. A reasonably good marksman should be able to achieve a hit in the brain or upper spine at this distance. Around here fallow deer is kept as livestock. Those deer are frequently killed with shots from .22 lr or .22 magnum to avoid damage to the meat.
A bigger round like .222 is very likely to scatter small animals like birds or rabbits over a pretty big area. This will not leave much to eat. Small animals are easier to find and take in most areas. So it may be smarter to go for the smaller round in a survival gun. Anything too big is likely to be left at home. Using the .22 for hunting bigger game means going to if not over the limit of that round. So I would not advocate this for regular hunting.

.22 ammo weight almost nothing and take very little space, so you can carry much more than bigger rounds.

On a slightly different note, I remember seeing pictures of a 22. rifle or pellet gun which was esentially a long barreled pistol with a folding stock. would of thought that this would make a good survival firearm as it would be lightweight and easy to carry. Any links?
Cheers

on a .222 round the cartridge is bigg, but the bullet is not that bigg, using full-metaljacket rounds should be good on small game dont you think?

And with the .222 you can shoot at greater distance with good impact power and trajectory.

The key is the velocity of the bullet. Even the full metal jacket can do enormous damage on small animals. When you hit a bone even the remains may no longer be edible. I have seen varmint with exit wounds in the size of a fist from FMJ bullets. And I´ve also seen hares and rabbits where less than half of the meat was still intact after they where taken with .222 FMJ. In conclusion I´d say that this is not really an option for small game.
There is no doubt that a .222 has a longer range but in a survival situation you may not be able to take advantage of it. As others pointed out the bulk and weight of .22 rounds and guns is an advantage when you pack it just in case.
Game hunting is a different subject. Some countries have laws on minimum requirements on ammo used for this (I mine hunting deer with .22 is illegal).

interesting article about survival firearms: http://www.us-rsog.org/USRSOG-Firearm.htm

There are several 22 cal rifles designed as survival weapons.The Air Force even designed a 22/410 over under as its survival fire arm.There is even a 22 that breaks down and all parts store in its floatable stock.Doug Ritter may have an item on ETS.I'll see if I can find it.

Yep, found it .On the home page on left side go to Gear and equipment and click on it.Scroll down to"Bang(survival firearms)".It's a short article but it says it well enough.

Everyone brought up some really good points on the 22 but one that was not brought up was the price of guns and ammo. I have a CZ 452 in 22 lr I paid about 200 bucks for, try to buy a decent centerfire for that price, it will, with boring regularity, shoot .5" groups at 50 yards. There is no recoil, no muzzle blast and ammo is dirt cheap I can shoot all I want, which makes me a better shot and hunter, and not worry about disturbing people a half a mile away.
A bit more about the effectiveness of the 22lr, I sat on the end of a dirt runway in AZ and with the rifle I described above, shooting from shooting sticks, with a 10X mil dot scope, killed 3 Jack rabbits in 7 shots, at a leica lased 211 yds. This isn't a tall tale, I did it. Chris

Just out of curiosity: May I ask for which distance did you set your scope for that?

Max,
The scope is a Tasco 2 to 10x mildot, it was set to 10x. After three ranging shots, POI was right where the cross hairs get fine at the very bottom of the reticule. The bullet was dropping below the last mil dot. The shots were made right at dusk with no wind, ammo was CCI Mini mag hollow points. The rabbits did not even seem to be disturbed at the sound of the gun firing, but would move a bit at the sound of impact. All three rabbits even at this range were cleanly killed and did not run.
I have a hunting partner and both of us regularly set up about 100 to 150 yards from brush piles with a lot of rabbits and make those shots regularly, it is actually a very deadly way to hunt the rabbits aren't disturbed and if you have a good spot you can kill several with out spooking them. Chris

Chris,
thanks for the information. It seems that the animals are not really disturbed by the sound of gunfire at distances of 100 yards or more. The animals do not connect the sound to danger unless they are taught to. It´s quite common that animals do not run after the hit when they aren´t disturbed.

Max,
What part of Germany are you in? I was stationed there 92-96, I was in Augsburg for 2 years then moved to Bad Aibling for 2 and half. The animals reaction to gunfire has alot to do with how much they are hunted. Chris

This is the sort of thing I was talking about. Scroll about 1/6th og the way down. Its called "Secondhand Crosman Ratcatcher with silencer". Good price too.

I´m close to Erlangen. That´s about 140 km north of Augsburg. We hunt mostly roe deer here. They are hunted frequently. We have a rule to sit and wait for some time after the kill. When the distance is short the animals run even with good shots. When the distance is longer they usually stay on the spot. Rabbits were usually shot at short distance in the head. As long as they didn´t spot the hunter they kept coming.
A friend once shot a deer in an area were the deer is hunted very infrequently. The distance was about 150 yards the gun was .243. The deer stood through two "ranging shots" and finally took the bullet without running. That´s not common however.

For what it's worth...

And I've seen small game taken cleanly with a blank round chambered behind a twig shoved into the barrel.. not a great idea, but it works at close range.

I have a fair bit of North American big game experience - all critters but one with something a lot more appropriate than a 22 rimfire.

The 22 long rifle is a very lethal round - but not neccessarily incapacitating. Relatively deep penetration and a long skinny permanent wound channel, no matter what kind of ammo you feed it (forget exploding water-filled cans - it ain't the same thing). Very very lethal for the patient person who places shots precisely.

Statute of limitations having expired long time ago - it will in fact cleanly take a whitetail IFF the shot is precise. One shot, one pile of meat. First deer - amazed me. A .458 wouldn't have dropped it any quicker. The only deer I ever had step out of its tracks was a heart-lung-shot with a very heavily constructed 30 caliber 180gr bullet (elk was the venue, but there was a deer tag as well) - the wound channel was amazingly like a 22, only bigger. Same bullet I've hammered griz and moose with. Bambi run, bambi fall <shrug> would have had the same result, more or less, with a 22. Maybe a little longer run - or not.

And 22 rimfire is very quiet in a rifle with subsonic velocity ammunition. And the ammo is small and not especially heavy, as ammo goes.

But - exactly what sort of "survival" situation are we talking about? I would not choose the 22 on purpose unless I was intending to stay a long time or travel a long distance and hunting meat for the pot was part of my plan.

The ammo is not particularly waterproof compared to factory centerfire ammunition. It appears to have a shorter "shelf life" (not that it would matter in anything other than a TEOTWAWKI situation). And... there's that "precise" and "not neccessarily incapacitating" caveat. Not what I would prefer to face a large canivore or POed moose (elk to Europeans) with.

I have a choice of firearms to take into the wilds with me and on some trips for specific reasons, a 22 has been the caliber of choice for me. But not usually. On extended duration trips on foot where fresh meat was hoped for, I carefully loaded "small game" rounds for my centerfire rifle of choice for that trip. Noisy compared to 22? Sure. Large compared to 22? Sure. But it does the job. Some folks carry a sub-caliber device and sub-caliber ammo for the same purpose, but I've never been enamored of that approach. Simpler to depress the top cartridge in the magazine and slip in a tailor-loaded cast bullet cartridge that I had complete control over for velocity, accuracy, etc.

Oh - one can take fish with a 22 as well - but I decline to elaborate - it does not involve shooting in the conventional sense and for goodness sake, don't shoot a 22 over water - can we say "skipping stone"?

I'd consider a 22 an expert's caliber for harvesting meat, not a first choice for most of us (myself included).

My 2 cents worth.

Tom

AyersTG,
I can see that you are indeed well learned on this subject. Let me clarify my point on choosing the 22 as a survival gun. First you have to look at the situation, if this is a SERE situation I want something as quite as possible, if it is natural or unnatural disaster I want something that I can efficiently and effectively provide food for my family, and again, quite would be good in many situations. If I am just lost in the woods I want something that will kill the game that is most prolific and leaving enough left for me to eat, and of course be light enough to always have with you. Lastly, would be self defense, which I would try to avoid at all costs. As I have already said the cost for the guns and ammo is very cheap compared to centerfire rifles, I could have several firearms and plenty of ammo with a fraction of the weight and price of even light centerfires.
Everywhere I have been in the states, and around the world for that matter, there is an abundance of small game and birds, not always the case with larger game. I would target these animals for sustenance over larger game, more plentiful ,easier to hunt and prepare and transport. The occasional big game that I dropped would be welcome also. 22 ammo is also the most widely availble everywhere I have ever been. We are not talking about sporting uses, this is a survival discussion, I would never hunt anything larger than a racoon with a 22lr under normal circumstances.

I have heard all about the problems with rimfire ammo being more prone to moisture and misfires. In 25 years of shooting untold thousands of rimfire rounds I would bet I have had less than 15 misfires, and those more likely with less than premium ammo. If you buy good ammo and keep it in original or better packaging I just have not seen any problem with moisture or misfires. As far as large carnivores go, how many do we have left, I don't think that is a concern in most places.

I also reload and have experimented with reduced loads, my favorite is blue dot loads in the 223. My experience has been that you don't get the level of accuracy, more meat damage to edible small game, and you have to keep up with 2 types of ammo. It is funny that we are having this discussion being that my hero has always been Elmer Keith who is famous for saying "Use enough Gun" and was a proponent of bigbores, he said that the 30-06 was too light for deer, but again my choices for survival would be different.

I have said what I have to say, if I had to pick just one gun, and I stand behind my decision. If I weren't restricted to just one gun my choices would be much different. Stay safe, Chris

...I would probably grab my customized 1917 Swedish Mauser in 6.5 x 55mm, but only because I'm especially confident that I'll hit whatever I'm aiming at, at any reasonable range. For close up personal defense, I'll choose the 9mm CZ75, for much the same reason. Then again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a .22LR, in the hands of a good marksman.

Another thing to consider that has only been touched on briefly – WEIGHT. Carrying a larger-caliber rifle means a lot more weight and bulk to lug around, something to consider carefully in a survival situation. There is also the weight of the ammo – a box of .22 LR weighs little and gives you 50 opportunities to hit something, as compared to 20 for a box of .223-caliber that weighs about the same. Non-marksman that I am, I’d opt for the law of averages.

Well the Springfield M6 survival rifle was offered in 22LR and .223... I originally wanted more punch/kick for the buck until I calculated the price and commoness of one vs the other. I chose 22LR because of what you said in terms of ammo weight. If used correctly 22LR will be as effective and versatile as .223. Don;t get me wrong... I would love to have 30-06 and 12 gauge combined in something that weights as much as M6 but that's impossible.

But in regards to the book. I still believe that he was totally unprepared and his skills and abilities didn't match his ego. And his luck run out.

Matt

But still he chose the same caliber firearm as you would for that kind of situation!

he had prior experience, skills and he was out there for a long time.

For those of you at least open-minded enough to appreciate the (several) advantages of the ubiquitous 22lr...

I'd encourage you to take a look at modern air guns. While none but the most exotic will do for even deer, well... if it comes down to meat for the pot there are a LOT more squirrels and bunnies out there than deer, and a lot less hunters aiming (more or less) in their direction.

Airgus are relatively silent (which could become important), the ammunition weighs MUCH less, and is much less bulky than even .22lr (think 250 rounds in an Altoids tin), they can be amazingly accurate (up to Olympic level), and production air guns are easily available up to .25 caliber (yes, there are production 9mm and even .50 caliber air rifles, but they have other disadvantages).

More importantly, having one can make HUGE differences in the amount of target practice that you can get in. They don't require frequent cleaning or maintenance, and the lack of noise means that an improvised range can be set up in a typical basement... meaning that if you get bored watching Gilligan's Island re-runs (despite their obvious survival relevance), you can be shooting instead in a couple of minutes, and quit just as easily... which means you can shoot every day if you like- no packing, unpacking, forgotten ammo, clips, hearing protection, no cleaning, no round-trip driving to the range. That can easily amount to SEVERAL times as much practice as even the devoted shooter can get at a range- and the skills gained are largely transferable to firearms.

I won't go into detail here- there's a great deal to know about modern air guns, and a great many are NOT directly applicable (IMHO) to survival situations, but many are. I would not suggest trying to replace powder burners with air guns by any means, but they are an excellent supplement, and the better ones can do amazing things for your marksmanship skills, as well as possibly enhancing your ability to quietly put meat on the table if need be.

That thing would never kill a rat, and why the hell does it have a silencer when there is nothing to silence?

I chose it just because my M6 has a .410 mounted on top of the 22. I can drop anything I want with that slug or use bird shot for regular stuff. 22 is just an icing on the cake.

Matt

Understand that you can't hunt with an airgun, it's so stupid airguns, if you wanna kill beer cans or something like that otherwise it's no use. In a survial situation, an airgun would probably be very dangerous, if you walk around thinking it will help you. It won't.

>>Understand that you can't hunt with an airgun, it's so stupid airguns<<

Not sure where you're getting your info.

Since a great many people have taken a great many animals with airguns for hundreds of years (one went with Lewis and Clark, and they were used by poachers long before that), I'd have to guess that they'd be very surprised to hear that you can't do it.

The most powerful firearm is completely useless if you can't hit anything with it- and most people can't. Unlike in the movies and on TV, that is NOT an automatic thing... you can't just wish the bullet into the target, and the bullet doesn't care if you're the "good guy". It takes time and practice, and lots of it.

At, say, $5 to $10 for a mere 20 shots, most hunters will never get nearly enough practice with their hunting rifles. For most hunters (at least here in the East) it doesn't matter much- deer are so abundant that it's a struggle to keep from running over them in the streets, and if the hunter doesn't get one all season, nobody misses a meal, so marksmanship sometimes gets glossed over. It won't work that way anymore if they're hungry.

I've been shooting powder burners of various descriptions off-and-on for almost 30 years, and still do. In all that time, nothing improved my marksmanship nearly as much as getting involved with air rifles in the past few years. I stand by what I said.

I have shot with Beeman R7 rifle which had muzzle vel of 700 fps. With pointed 4.5mm pellet I was a king of the yard within 40 yrd radius. I never went beyond shooting a rabbit but hey that enough.

Matt

An airgun may not be my favorite for hunting but at distances up to 20 yards an airgun can drop an animal of the size of a pigeon or a squirrel with a well placed pellet. It requires good marksmanship and knowledge of where to aim but it can be done.

The R7 is a joy to shoot, and very accurate.

There are a lot of springers these days that are barely subsonic, but the ones that sit around 900-1000 fps seem to be more accurate in practical terms. With .20 - .25 caliber pellets, that's quite a bit more energy than you had at your disposal with the R7.

marcus who:

A silencer acts in the same manner as a tapered turd. By being tapered the turd does not allow your cheeks to come back together too quickly and cause a slapping sound every time you expell a complete turd.

In an airgun, the pressurized air splits the atmosphere and causes a vacumn to be formed behind the rapidly expelled air from the gun. Since mother nature abhors a vacumn, the atmosphere rushes in to fill the vacumn, and the sound you hear is the clapping of the atmosphere filling the vacumn and hitting itself.

A silencer slows down the expulsion of the air after the pellet has left the barrel and thereby reduces the size of the vacumn, and the speed necessary for the atmosphere to refill the void.

Bountyhunter

P.S. I am looking for a full copy of Paladin Presses "Hitman" on the web complete with all pictures. I have found a site with just the text, but I would like the whole thing. It's an academic interest as I know most of its techniques from other books.

I love teh analogy <img src="images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Peter,

That's a wonderful simile. You had me ROFLMAO!

John

Reminds me of a true story I read in Jim Corbett's "Maneaters of Kumaon". Corbett was hunting a man-eating tiger through the Indian jungle. At one point, believing that he had lost the animal's trail, he and his native guide were (IIRC) returning to camp. Corbett, an amateur egg collector, had found the nest of a rare bird and was carrying some of its eggs in his left hand; he gave his heavy rifle to the guide and was carrying a lighter rifle (I don't remember the calibre but I don't think it was a .22) in his right hand. At some point, he turned - I think to say something to his guide/bearer, and suddenly found himself face to face with the man-eater he had been tracking for days.

He said that three things, which at first would appear to be very bad luck, actually saved his life. First, the animal was a man-eater; a normal tiger would have been spooked and would instinctively have attacked, but the man-eater, having lost its fear of humans, didn't. Secondly, had he not been carrying the eggs in his left hand, he would instinctively have reacted himself; this would definitely have caused the tiger to attack, and at such close range Corbett would have had no chance to defend himself. Thirdly, the fact that the rifle in his right hand was small and lightweight meant that he could carefully bring it around, aim it, and fire it with one hand, whereas with a heavier rifle he would have had no chance.

His first - and only - shot went through the animal's brain, killing it instantly.

(IIRC, his first act after confirming that the tiger was dead was to return the eggs to their nest, as an offering to whatever deity had been watching over him.)

It's been many years since I read "Maneaters of Kumaon" but that scene has always remained vivid in my memory.

>>But in regards to the book. I still believe that he was
>>totally unprepared and his skills and abilities didn't
>>match his ego. And his luck run out.

In fairness, you can't say he was "totally unprepared" - he went quite well prepared, and he survived for several months.

I agree that his skills and abilities didn't match his ego - I suspect, personally, that he was a bit of an "adrenalin junkie". The main impression I got from the book was that he simply didn't learn the same lessons from experience as a "normal" person would. Whereas most of us would regard a close brush with death as an indication that we had pushed it a little too close to the edge, McCandless seemed to interpret it as further proof of his own invincibility. (Of course, maybe I'm thinking of Jeff Bridges's character in the movie "Fearless".)

But in fairness, I cannot agree that he was "totally unprepared".

Presumed ,
How in the world did I miss this post. I am indeed open minded enough to know that airguns are perfect for small game.

I have a daystate PH6 in .25 and my hunting buddy, the same one that I was talking about in earlier posts, has a daystate huntsman in .22. We hunt mainly cottontails and jackrabbits in southeast Arizona and can very cleanly kill them out to 50yds.

Marcus, if you doubt this, I have pictures and even video of me doing it. I suggest you do a google search of air rifle hunting and I think it will open your eyes. There are very expensive handmade air guns up to .50 caliber that have been used to kill elk, deer, and wild hogs, check out quackenbush air rifles. I think you will be surprised.

Very good point Lost, thanks for an interesting discussion, Chris

One very practical approach is to carry a medium power longarm and complementary sidearm. For example, a favorite pair I carry on deer hunting trips is a bolt action .30-06 rifle and a .22 LR revolver, normally a S & W 63 kit gun. Such a readily portable battery has sufficient power for anything in North America, albeit a little light for grizzlies. OTOH, it also deftly covers small game hunting. Such a pairing of complementary guns allows great breadth of coverage with normal full power loads which are so readily available.

Some other broad complementary pairs would include a sidearm and a combination gun which provides both a rifle and a shotgun barrel with one superimposed over the other. In addition to the previously mentioned Springfield M6, the Savage M24, and a Russian import under the name Baikal make available shotguns in 12 and 20 ga., and .410. They also cover the gamut of calibers from .22 LR through .30-06 and beyond. If for instance the Savage 24 is chosen with .22LR and 20 ga. 3" magnum, then a good complement would be a medium to high powered handgun. An alternative longarm would include a dedicated rifle in .22LR or even a shotgun.

Another obvious consideration in choosing a survival gun is the weight of ammunition. In preparation for various activities, we recorded the following weights of factory ammunition in factory boxes (as weighed on our somewhat aged baby scale, YMMV):

.22 LR--5oz.--for a box of 50 rounds of 37 gr. hollow points.
.32 H & R Mag--17.5 oz.--50 rds., 95 gr. bullet.
.357 Mag-- 30 oz.--50 rds., 158 gr. bullet
.44 Mag--59 oz.--50 rds., 240 gr. bullet.

.223 Rem--8 oz.--20 rds., 55 gr. bullet.
.243 Win--14 oz.--20 rds., 100 gr. bullet.
.270 Win--17 oz.--20 rds., 130 gr. bullet.
.30-06 Spr--19 oz.--20 rds. 150 gr. bullet.

20 ga--35 oz.--25 rds., 1 oz. shot.
12 ga--45 oz.-- 25 rds., 1 1/4 shot.

John

Thanks for the kind words.

Beautiful rifles, both. We don't see many repeaters around here.

I haven't personally gotten into PCP myself, partly because so much of my shooting is in the basement just for practice, and partly because of the infrastructure required.

Obviously, they're nearly ideal for what you're doing, but do you feel that the dependence on scuba tanks, compressors etc. affects the suitability of PCP for survival considerations?

Thats exactly what i said, airguns are useless in any wilderness sort of situation. I meen how often does a person ever get close enough to the animal to kill it with an airgun?

After just a short distance the pellets lose it's power and speed, and if there is just a little bit of wind the pellets will go flying of to some other place hell knows where. Admit it's a little bit silly to bring up airguns when talking about what kind of caliber firearm would be best suited in a wilderness/survival like situation.

And they are to expensive aswell i guess.

Interesting analogy there bountyhunter, it's always fun to know where diffrent pepole direct there attention, and get their ideas and analogys from.

My note on the silencer was due to the fact that in relation to gunpowder firearms the sound from an airgun is minimal.

>>I meen how often does a person ever get close enough to the animal to kill it with an airgun?<<

Getting close to game is part of hunting.

Most shooters experienced with airguns consider their effective limit to be about 30 yards on small game. People all over the world take animals at much closer ranges than that every day, with all sorts of weapons.

In the case of a survival situation, how far is it to a bird feeder in your backyard?

>> airguns are useless in any wilderness sort of situation... silly to bring up airguns<<

Well, among a great many others, noted "survival" authors Mel Tappan (in "Survival Guns") and Ragnar Benson ( in "Live off the land in the City and Country") have disagreed with your thesis.

If you read my original post, you'll see that I did not advocate airguns as a primary survival tool, but only as a supplement to others.

But then, if you read my orignal post, you'll see that I did, very explicitly, try to direct it only to the open-minded. If you prefer to disregard it, please do.

Marcus,
I have no idea where you are getting your information, but you would be wise indeed to listen to experience. Airguns are not useless in a survival situation, my personal best was 13 rabbits in one morning, thats alot of food, all taken with an air rifle.
I think your experience is with a Walmart crosman, THESE ARE NOT THE AIR RIFLES WE ARE DISCUSSING. My longest shot with an air rifle was 62 yds resulting in a clean kill. After 25 years of hunting big and small game, I would say my average range for all shots is around 50 yds, so to answer your question I almost always get that close to game.

It is silly of you to disreguard a very useful piece of gear. Chris

Presumed Lost,
By all means take the plunge, PCP rifles are great. But, admittedly there is something to be said for grabbing your rifle and a tin of pellets and taking off, without worrying about tanks or pumps, my next rifle is going to be a Air Arms tx 200 in 22.

To talk about PCPs a bit, the main advantage I see is extended shooting with out filling, fast follow up shot, and no recoil, so, unlike a springer follow though is not nearly as important, therefore you can shoot smaller groups with less practice. I don't fill from a scuba tank, I have a pump, which is also expensive. It is not bad to fill your rifle with the pump and I get about 40 full power shots from one fill. My hunting pellets are beeman crow magnums and kodiaks both of which will shoot into tiny little bughole groups at 40yds. Bob, my hunting partner, has the daystate, and an R1 and R7. Air rifles have opened an entire new realm to my hunting and shooting sports, anyone that turns their nose up is missing out on a whole lot of practice and fun. BTW my wife cooks some rabbit and dumplings that is out of this world. Chris

Chris,

Thanks for the insight. I have a SSP target air rifle as well as the springers, so I'm familiar with the advantages of not having all that moving mass... although, I have an old Feinwerkbau FWB-300S "recoilless" target springer that comes close to the shooting experience of the SSP... but neither comes close to the power of your PCP rifles.

I personally find shooting the springers accurately an interesting challenge- but I have to admit, the SSP is easier, requires less concentration, you can relax more. But then, most of my air rifle shooting is at 10m with "iron" sights.

The most powerful air rifle I have is a lowly RWS/Cometa 94 in .22 (nominally 825 fps, not bad for an inexpensive springer) which is actually a pretty sweet rifle, handles well, smooth cocking, nice manners, but in need of a trigger job I'll get around to, someday... maybe this winter.

Do I understand you filled them from scratch with a hand pump? I know some people who use them to top off, but I was given to understand that filling one from scratch that way was quite a task. One also hears about condensation problems. If those aren't really problems, I might be more tempted... <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Presumed,
I wouldn't say that 825fps is low powered, plenty good for most air rifle tasks. As you mentioned power wise, you would not believe my PH6, it is a canon. When I bought it I had no idea. I had to change my normal metal and plywood backstop, now I have an old kevlar vest that I use that is holding up well.

Now let me tempt away. Filling a rifle from o to 250 bar with a manual pump is a little daunting, but after the first fill, topping off isn't so bad, I never let pressure get below about 90 bar, or try not to. It isn't as easy as cocking a barrel or lever though. As far as condensation, I live in AZ so don't really have that problem, if I move to the east coast I will buy an inline filter which I have been told takes care of the problem. I think for field, hunting, or pest control the PCPs are the way to go, even with the issues we talked about. You obviously love air rifles, I would say to definitely give a pcp a try. www.airgunsofarizona.com usually has a decent selection of used guns, if price is an object, I think for your purposes the Air Arms S200 might be perfect. Another good site is www.straightshooters.com. Chris

Marcus_who:

I agree that an air gun is not as loud as most powder burning weapons, but in stealth, every little bit helps.

Witness the number of bowhunters that use string silencers even though a bowstrings twang is infinitely more silent than an air gun.

Bountyhunter

<img src="images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />. That must be some air rifle.

Was that link supposed to be www.airgunsofarizona.com ?

Ditchfield,
I guess my proof reading skills aren't very good, thanks for the correction.

It is an unbelievable air rifle. In the states we are not limited to any certain energy level. In England, where I see you are from, there are laws that limit an air rifle's energy, the legal limit is 12fpe (foot pounds of energy). My rifle easily doubles that figure, with power to spare, but 12 fpe is plenty good for game up to the size of rabbits.

You are lucky though, the best air rifles in the world are made in England, in my opinion, my daystate, webley and scott and a host of others. Chris

Thanks for the info. I've been thinking about getting an airgun for a while now. My ideal one would probably be an air pistol with an optical site and a folding stock, purely because it would be small and lightweight. It would also ideally be under £100 <img src="images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />, like that going to happen.

Lewis and Clark carried an Isaiah Lukens Air Rifle which they reportedly could kill deer with at 50 yds. Didn't ahve to worry about wet powder.
Just my 2¢
Jack

Chris,

Again, thanks for the insights. I'm well acquainted with both those websites.

>>I wouldn't say that 825fps is low powered, plenty good for most air rifle tasks.<<

Actually, it's pretty high-powered... for a springer in .22. The 825 is just nominal, with "real" pellets the model seems to chrony about 750 fps.

I rarely shoot it indoors, because even with the steel traps that can handle it (most air gun traps can't), the lead pellets actaully splatter, and fragments easily come back the 30 feet or so. That seems to happen with steel targets and anything that does more than about 550 fps- I have a CZ-631 with a Maccari tune kit that probably puts out .177s at 575 fps or so, and shooting metal targets (hanging "spoons" and such) I've been stung by fragments many times, and can often hear them hitting the wall behind me.. you don't want to forget shooting glasses.

The RWS 94 does work with the "ballistic putty" (duct seal) trap, or with a thick bundle of newspapers, though that makes a mess eventually. As I said, the trigger needs attention, but the piece never fails to bring a smile to the shooter- it's just sweet. Very nice for an inexpensive air rifle (or very inexpensive for a nice air rifle).

>>You obviously love air rifles<<

Like most of my interests, it comes in waves and cycles over time. I also shoot flintlocks, and sometimes pieces.. well, we computer nerds say "any noun can be verbed", and that also applies to "grandfather". :-) Still, although I've enjoyed shooting for decades, airguns have given me MORE shooting to enjoy than anything else.

>>if price is an object<<

Generally not, at least in the range of a few grand here and there.. though it was an object, come to think of it, the last time I bought an air rifle. That's one of the reasons (there were others) that I ended up with the RWS 94 instead of an R9. I seem to recall that a good hand pump for PCP was about $750?

I will consider what you've told me when "new toy" time comes in that area of interest again. :-) Thanks.

Presumed_lost:

Back when I was very active in the shooting sports, there used to be a bullet trap designed for home use in .22 long rifle caliper. This trap had an extreme angle in its backplate that led to a curved portion at the lower end of the trap. The idea was that the bullet was deflected downward, entered the curved cusp and spent its remaining energy quickly and safely by looping in the curved portion. Sounds to me like you could use a trap designed for powder burning .22's.

Of course this all assumes you don't live in <deleted by Admin> England or Austrailia.

Bountyhunter

Bountyhunter,

Thanks- I've seen the "Outers" style .22 trap used quite a bit with airguns, but haven't sprung for one yet. Noise is a problem with them, I hear.

The ductseal/putty trap works very well, and it's perfectly silent, so I couldn't ask for more... when punching paper.

The problem is when I let loose at a metal TARGET (built into a metal trap). One has hanging "spoon" targets (quarter and dime-sized circles) and another has mini-silhouette steel targets. If I left those alone with the more powerful air rifles, there'd be no problem at all- but "reactive" targets are temptingly fun to shoot at.

In one winter I actually destroyed one of the "spoon" targets. The target faces were becoming noticably "peened" by the pellets (they had a hand-hammered look), and eventually metal fatigue started breaking them off the stems. That was with a low-powered CZ-631, not a hunting airgun. It's just a little "hot" for indoor use... I also worry about vaporized lead, though I'm firing from a finished part of the basement to an unfinished area.

The traps don't have any trouble handling the real "target" airguns, which seem to cluster around 450 fps, and with those the pellets just deform. Somewhere above 550 fps, they seem to start to completely liquify from the impact on a hard target- the main part of the pellet looks like a "splash", and fragments look like droplets.

Where I am (mid-Atlantic seaboard in the "land of the free, and the home of the brave") isn't as bad as England or Australia yet, but they sure seem determined to get there- the issue of who gets elected seems to affect only the pace, not the direction. We've been talking about a change of venue.

Post deleted by Doug_Ritter

Post deleted by Doug_Ritter

Post deleted by Doug_Ritter

I had several things to say but deleted them all.

Have a very happy thanksgiving

Hello, Chris !

I'm a target pistol shooter, mainly .177 air pistol (accuracy, 10m). I own a now old Feinwerkbau model 100 pistol. (no air, nor CO2 cartridge, but a cocking lever, which precompresses air inside a chamber ; something likethis one ).

I have no experience with the kind of air rifles you talk about.
So, the links you provided were interesting reading material.

As far as I can see,most of those air rifles are either breakbarrel or need a scuba tank or hand pump to fill an air cartridge.
- breakbarrel : I suppose it means you "fold" the front part of the barrel to compress a spring. As I have only seen, a long time ago, this system on cheap, inaccurate rifles, I guess now this system has been enhanced. But does it stay sturdy as the rifle ages ? Or does it become somewhat loose ... ??
- air cartridge, filled with scuba tank or hand pump : I know this system is now used, to replace the CO2 cartridge system, for competition pistols and rifles.
But I don't like its complexity. And it's forbidden to transport such a weapon, with the air cylinder charged.
- I would prefer something along the lines of the RWS model 48 (side cocking lever). But then you have only one shot ! Not easy to follow rapidly with a second one, if needed...

After reading your post, I tried a google search, for french web sites on air rifles, but did not find anything on the subject.

I guess air rifles, except for 10m target shooting, are not easily available in France.
And I guess I would need a possession permit to get one (depends on the rifle power ; mandatory above 10 "joules" which is .. I don't know, I will have to do some calculations ... <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> ).



Alain

Correction :

To possess an air rifle over 10 joules (that gives about 630fps, with a 0,45 grammes pellet), I need to declare it to french authorities.
But for some air weapons over 10 joules, a possession permit may be needed.


Alain