Doc

And yet here is crappy old Gander Mountain somehow keeping their doors open. Well anyways, now there are no shortages of big box outdoor stores. The competition is fast and furious and we hunters are the beneficiaries. We do still have crappy old Gander Mountain, and soon a brand new Bass-pro, and the great Field & Stream store, and Dick's now over here in Western NY. Life is good!

Great Video!!!!

I try real hard not to be lured into taking any "quick shots" or any kind of shots where I feel pressured for time. The scope forces me to do that. Whenever I hear the phrase "quick shot" being used, I think of scenarios of "jump-shooting" deer like rabbits with such speed that things in the background tend not to be looked at with enough scrutiny to ensure safety. Among other undeniable benefits, I see the fact that things are forcibly being slowed down as the biggest benefits in the realm of gun safety. It is just possible that one of the main reasons for the vast improvements in NYS's safety record is the proliferation of scopes in the deer woods. Not only do you automatically slow down the shooting, but you also get a magnified clear view of what's behind the target with the only vision obstruction being the thin crosshairs. I'm a big fan of scopes not only for my use, but also for those around me that are shooting in my vicinity.

Damn! Can you imagine being attacked and killed by coyotes. What a nasty way to go ...... one bite at a time. That' a disgusting thought.

I have never had an accuracy concern with my Ithaca Deerslayer, but that 12 Ga. was never something I would call a pleasure to shoot. By contrast, I spent an hour up on my range "playing" with my .270, just loving every shot and seeing what kinds of tight groups I could get. It was truly recreation, and a familiarization process that I wish more deer hunters could (and would) experience with their deer guns. Compare that with the typical annual 5-shot verification group that I would painfully go through with that old 12 ga. Why 5 shots? ... because beyond that I would begin to bruise. Hopefully at the end of the 5-shot group I would be satisfied with the group, because anything after that involved increasing flinching and I would be in for an ugly re-sighting process that was absolute misery. That 12 ga. has not been out of the closet since they legalized rifles in Ontario County, and I haven't missed it for a moment.

I and several others on this forum have seen a lot of change of this sort, and it is indeed sad. What's even worse is the realization that nothing will ever slow down this hunting land development and "lock-up". It's a process that you can only look at and do nothing about.

I always thought that once these guys were in proper combat gear, they might break a bone or two, but nothing too life-threatening other than an occasional aberration or two. This movie opened up a whole other aspect to the effects of the constant head-pounding that these guys take. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to take that kind of abuse and potential permanent cranial damage. The movie based on true events showed the extent that the NFL would go to cover up the dangers from the players and the public. However, when it ended, all the findings became public, but there was no indication that anything really changed other than the players understanding that they are playing mental Russian Roulette. But at least they have the knowledge of what is at stake and can make their own minds up about whether they want to take the risks or not. I have no problems with competitive violence and trauma when the facts are all laid out in front of the players. The movie itself was kind of different. It was done in a way that kept you a bit on edge, and contained all the appropriate drama for entertainment. But the introduction of history, facts and figures, kept the integrity of the documentary aspects of it too. Well done, and Will Smith was perfectly cast and brilliant in his performance.

And of course to all this the DEC would say, "Halleluiah, we need more coyotes". And while we are into the "truth uncovering mode", somebody want to redo that silly study that claims that the more coyotes you kill the more they increase. I'm still having a real problem with that one.

Well, I have no doubt that an air-rifle that can take down a water buffalo, probably is powerful enough to do in a deer. But my impression is that there is a wide variety of these things from B-B guns to some beastly thing capable of killing a water buffalo. It sounds like they had better do a damn good job of describing minimum requirements, or there is the possibility that there will be people out there using all kinds of under-powered, unethical weapons. Even with gunpowder powered deer rifles, I don't believe that the DEC did an adequate job of defining minimums. Let's hope they do a better job on air powered rifles.

I just saw the movie "Concussion" yesterday. It kind of gave me quite a different perspective on football. I had no idea what kinds of things those guys put themselves through and what the end-results can turn out to be.

Things have truly gotten out of control. I never do holidays very well with all the damn food and sweets and crap everywhere I turn. And I found out that I actually get more exercise before season with all the scouting and stand building and other hunting related activities. But once the season starts, I walk to the stands, and plunk my rump down and then walk back out. Not exactly what you would call a good cardio-workout. So yes there is a resumption of workouts and diet control coming.

Same here, and the reason is that it is a small chunk of land that is already filled up. We are able to get the number of hunters on the land because we all get together and discuss where we are going to be standing to ensure that no one is cutting another off, and that all hunting set-ups are safe and spaced far enough apart. I cannot deal with organizing the hunting on my land beyond that, and I don't want to deal with the conflicts and potential hazards of just opening it up further and losing all control entirely. I have a feeling that a lot of landowners are in the same boat. I have horror stories from both my father's experiences and my own where a simple act or two of generosity spun out of control to the point where my Dad's driveway began to look like a parking lot with all the hunters being friends and relatives of "friends and relatives of the couple co-workers that he originally gave hunting access to. He didn't know the names of a single one. Finally a chain had to go across the driveway and the people were told to leave and not to come back when they came to the door. I had a similar experience when I looked out the front window of our raised ranch set behind a 1000' deep thicket and watched a drive of 8 redcoats being set up in front of the house. I hot-footed it down and grabbed the ring-leader who turned out to be the brother-in-law of a guy I worked with some 6 years prior. I kind of lost it and left no doubt in their minds that they were to leave immediately and not ever come back. The next weekend was when the posted signs first went up and have remained ever since.

I don't understand what the thrill is to be trying to kill game with the least effective equipment, but there seems to be some reason why people want to try it. The .22 hornet is a legal deer caliber in areas of NYS where rifles are legal. I'm waiting for someone to try to rationalize using it for deer hunting. Of course, given perfect circumstances, the hornet will kill a deer, but what would even make anyone try?

At last, finally we are getting to a few real numbers in some of these videos and web-sites. Still a bit light on trajectory and range info, but little by little there is some actual penetration examples, animal sizes, and a little speed and projectile data. So far I have seen the performance at distance data but I did note in one of the videos that the hunter with the Benjamin .357 Rogue felt that his setup on a hartebeest was 50 yards maximum. While I was looking at some of the web-sites, I started to get the idea that the expensive rifle itself was only part of the cost. There seems to be tanks and all kinds of other pneumatic accessories that have to be bought also. I didn't find where they really got into that stuff but some of the tank costs looked a little huge to me. Also no mention of how many shots per tank, so I have no idea what the real cost per shot is. And hopefully that $1295 compressor or the $3000 one are not essential accessories .... lol. It's all interesting stuff, but still a lot of performance numbers missing. And some of what I saw on these sites and in the videos still has me wondering why anyone would think that these things are safe to use in urban and suburban scenarios where other rifles have been outlawed for deer hunting. Apparently certain chosen models equipped in certain ways are capable of taking down a water buffalo. That model at least probably wouldn't really be suitable for inner city deer hunting ..... lol. But I will say that it is an interesting subject.

I am just curious. Have you found that the .270 has been having difficulties coping with the brush. I know that the light higher speed bullets deflect and even disintegrate when they hit obstructions like branches saplings and twigs, and I am assuming that is why you want to switch to slugs, but have you actually had a problem with the .270 in this regard? I just recently switched from a 12 gauge to a .270, so I am curious as to what kinds of problems you may have actually encountered. I have many really tight thickets that I wouldn't take my .270 into, but the fact is that I wouldn't expect my old 12 gauge to plow through that stuff either. Anyway, I am just curious as to how big a problem you have been having and whether I should be concerned or not.

Actually, sitting around the campfire with your hunting clothes on might be a great way to get the smoke stink into them. I know anytime I sit around the fire the wind direction instantly changes to blow the smoke right at me. It must be some law of physics or something.....lol. I don't know, I am almost leaning towards giving it a try myself. If it's good enough for the Indians, why not give it a try.

I was hoping that this discussion would answer the question as to whether I should be for them or against them as a deer hunting weapon, not some kind of bogus comparison between air rifles and bows. So far the real subject of performance as a deer hunting weapon has been left out of the discussion. Real numbers regarding terminal energies at various distances, realistic trajectories at longer distances, or even empirical data of actual use on big game at various distances. What I have learned from this discussion still leaves me wondering if we are trying to kill deer with a pellet gun or some super efficient gun that has the killing power of conventional deer rifles. I know that when it comes to firearms, a lot of print has been used on what calibers and what loads are really adequate to kill a deer. I would expect that same scrutiny and discussion to take place before anyone gets all fanatical about these air guns and offers or withholds support for these weapons to be used on big game. All this peripheral drummed-up theory and comparisons to bows or whatever is really just diversion from the central question of, "Does the air rifle belong among the conventional calibers of firearms or not as a deer hunting weapon". Well that is still a question that apparently no one really wants to answer.

I have also heard of this idea being used by the Indians, but never had a chance to try it. Your experiment will be interesting. Was there any things so far that made you think it worked or didn't? I know these things are hard to prove or disprove because you don't always get to witness the effects. Also it is difficult to prove that the effects were due to the experiment. But at least it would be interesting to note the reactions (or lack thereof) of the deer to the intense smoke scent.

When it comes to challenge, you will have a real hard time convincing me that there is any comparison between any rifle of any sort and any bow of any sort. That is not even something that I would seriously waste time discussing because that is just a foolish comparison. You talked about the sub-moa accuracy, and then try to compare the challenge to that of a bow. Your comparisons with archery equipment are a hell of a reach at best in terms of a challenging method of deer hunting, and that is a judgment that doesn't really require any shooting experience with one of these rifles to make. As far as level of archery skills/challenges, I have to say that I watched Stacey Groscup shoot aspirins out of the air with a recurve, but I wouldn't exactly call that something that the average archer can do. Yes a dozen yards was a bit short and was mentioned in the context of a beginning archer of the recurve days (me), but I and many other people start getting a little uncomfortable after 25 yards. That is more likely the maximum efficient range of the average archer today. And yes with that limited distance the challenge is way more than any kind of rifle. So that point isn't even arguable. Quote: "The ballistic performances isn't much different than that of a broad head from archery equipment. Both implements primarily kill by means of wound channel and hemorrhaging." So you are saying that these big bore air rifle have the same looping trajectory as an arrow? See, when it comes to performance, I know nothing about these rifles, so I am surprised to hear that the performance is so poor. It sounds like a rangefinder would be a necessary accessory. But let me clear up one thing about the theory of killing between a blunt rifle projectile and a broadhead. The broadhead relies on sharp-edge laceration to penetrate to the vitals. Most bullets that I know of rely on energy and impact to penetrate to the vitals. That is a whole opposite theory of getting the job done with absolutely no similarity. I just wanted to straighten that point out a bit. So anyway, basically in every instance where you try to compare any rifle to a bow, the comparison fails miserably because there really is no comparison. Each weapon is unique in form and function with no similarities of any sort. You picked a bad weapon to try to compare air rifles against. That is a true attempt at apples and oranges type comparison, and not even that close of a comparison. Traditions ..... not a real big deal, but when I was a kid, my air rifle (B-B gun) was doing well to kill a sparrow. What a stretch it is to see a B-B gun being considered as any kind of deer hunting weapon of tradition. You asked why I use a bow, and "tradition, culture and heritage" was all part of my answer. It was never about trying to re-live my childhood. You misunderstood the kind of tradition that I was talking about. Cost vs. performance: My .270 Ruger American is a fairly decent quality gun, and it cost no where near the numbers I saw in this thread of one of these air rifles. The .270 will handle 95% of the shooting opportunities in NYS when it comes to deer. That's not the picture I am getting of these air-guns. So again, I do question the price vs. performance issue of opting for an air rifle. At least there is a huge issue there that I need more convincing on before I get all excited about running out and buying one of these things....lol. I do wonder about what the recommended maximum effective range is for deer. And I am curious about terminal energies and what is considered to be too far to ethically use one of these. I was hoping for more technical data on performance, but I guess I am not really all that interested to go on a research mission. But anyways, I guess I can now see a use for air-rifles in urban/suburban areas, which I will never really have to concern myself with. It certainly would never be my choice for the more traditional rural hunting by any stretch of the imagination. And perhaps it may be a desirable thing for kids where the massive kick of a .270 or .243 is just simply overwhelming (Sarcasm intended) . Oh yeah and other situations where noise may be a concern it might serve as a weapon with the features of a silencer that some may be interested in. Anyway, that's a pretty small niche, but does answer why somebody might consider buying one. I guess I am satisfied that there is nothing there for me, and I thank you for the answers.

When I got into bowhunting, it was for the super-challenge that it represented. The challenge of using a weapon that required muscle memory, and a whole list of form disciplines. The weapon then had a very direct tie to tradition, history and culture. A weapon that demanded some extreme challenges in the required knowledge of deer habits and patterns so you could get within a dozen yards and pull off a decent shot. Bows have changed appearance and performance, but the basic disciplines involved in shooting them haven't changed a whole lot. A lot of what appeared in the books of archery still apply in today's books. And so the appeal of challenge makes it an endeavor that still has the appeal of having accomplished something that is difficult. Does an air rifle provide those kinds of challenges? I really don't know because I have never shot one with the intention of dropping a deer. I don't see those same element of challenge other than wondering if I really have the energy performances to drive a projectile deep enough to enter and disrupt vital organs. The theory of operation is totally different than a broadhead, so I have no way of judging the adequacy of the weapon. It does leave me with questions of adequate performance and limitations. But again, I have no knowledge of these weapons and hence my questions. Are these things something that I would lay down twice the money that I spent on my .270? Is the performance per dollar similar to my .270? So many questions..... so few answers.....lol.

The reasons given made no sense as I explained. So I am still curious as to what the attraction is and hoping there is someone who can explain it. Perhaps I'm missing out on something if someone will take the time to honestly explain it all to me with real and logical answers. I would appreciate that rather than a whole bunch of uncalled for feigned outrage and defensiveness. And by the way, in case it all went over your head, I am not attacking the weapon or the use of it. I am simply trying to understand what people feel are the reasons for wanting to use them. Nothing aggressive or unfriendly or anything for you to be getting all indignant about. Just curiosity. It is the same kinds of questions I have asked a thousand times about different makes of bows, and certain calibers and models of rifles or shotguns. Frankly, I have never had anybody ever take offense over my asking those kinds of questions.

Lol

By the way, I would like to make an observation from some nearby state land. Most of the trash that I have found and removed was concentrated on the trails gouged into the forest floor my mountain bikers and the constant string of hikers that use those trails also. So, trying to blame it all on hunters is a pure distortion of facts. Oh, and aren't those blobs of bright colored paint splashed all over the trees next to the trails attractive. It's as if these bikers and hikers are all semi blind and unable to recognize the maze of dirt ditches that they are riding on. And while the DEC gets all excited over a hunter nipping a branch or two, they don't seem to have any problem with the bikers having a field-day with chainsaws removing limbs and downed logs. They do this with DEC permission and blessing. And then too, speaking of trash in the woods, I can't say that I have seen a whole lot of hunters walking through the woods carrying those mylar balloons that nobody seems to have a problem releasing into the air without a care where they will fall and become litter. People that would never think to thrown non-biodegradable materials out their car windows will stand there and oo-o-o & ah-h-h while they turn loose these party balloons totally unconcerned where they will eventually wind up. What friggin stupidity!

As it was intended to be. In fact most gun control laws are designed for maximum confusion to discourage firearms and accessories purchases. It is working exactly as intended as shown by this response by the sales clerk.

If you look on the DEC map where the antlerless only edict was placed, you will notice that the effected areas include some urban areas, but mostly run out into rural areas as well.