Hello,
The gun was an older FX Wildcat using the JSB 50.15gr pellets. Shot placement was straight down at the top of the head. These were also 200+lb hogs.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
Is a .30 caliber airgun REALLY deadlier than a .25?
- Thread starter Baker Airguns
- Start date
Hello,
The gun was an older FX Wildcat using the JSB 50.15gr pellets. Shot placement was straight down at the top of the head. These were also 200+lb hogs.
-Donnie
In my experience, shooting ground squirrels at 70-ish yards, I'd MUCH rather be using my FX Boss than my Royale 500 due to the hydrostatic shock & greater knock down power of the .30. There's just no comparison in how hard they're hit & how much faster they go down. It really boils down to the situation & what you need the airgun to do. EITHER one will penetrate but the .30, when hunting, will DEVASTATE!
Upvote 0
First and foremost, "hydrostatic shock" is probably a myth. It has been extensively studied since it was postulated and never....ever....proven. Second, even IF it is a real phenomenon, it would only occur with projectiles and shock-waves ABOVE the speed of sound. Your FX Boss does not even approach the speed of sound. If ground squirrels are taking longer to die from the .25 than the .30....it's probably shot placement.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
Amount of damage on tissue (what causes dead) is much, much bigger with .30 Cal than with .25.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
Hydrostatic shock can't be proven because adrenaline is a powerful drug. I've seen firsthand the effects of hydrostatic shock, but once adrenaline is added, there is no stopping the target without taking out the central nervous system directly.
One thing to remember about butcher is the shot is intended to render the animal unconscious for easier handling and to meet the legal obligation for animal welfare before the throat is cut. Killing the animal outright will prevent proper bleeding.
I personally believe the pellet was too soft to penetrate the skull and dumped its energy superficially. Hog and bear hunters use hard cast bullets for a reason.
One thing to remember about butcher is the shot is intended to render the animal unconscious for easier handling and to meet the legal obligation for animal welfare before the throat is cut. Killing the animal outright will prevent proper bleeding.
I personally believe the pellet was too soft to penetrate the skull and dumped its energy superficially. Hog and bear hunters use hard cast bullets for a reason.
Upvote 0
That is incorrect.
I still have the gel I shot.
There is no appreciable difference in the wound track or wound cavity.
That info will be in the Part II to this video.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
That is not why "hydrostatic shock" can't be proven.
It can't be proven because scientists who study it can find no conclusive evidence that it's anything more than a myth.
And I assure you, the butcher was definitely trying to kill the animal.
Not sure where you get the idea butchers knock things out to butcher them, but that is not at all how it works.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
Just FYI, the permanent channel left in ballistic gel does not accurately represent the degree of tissue damage to an animal.
One article that popped up in a quick search:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/09/interpreting-ballistic-gel-test-results/amp/
Upvote 0
That article actually supports my assertions.
Regardless, the gel does illustrate differences in projectile performance in the same medium.
It's a fair comparison...even if not directly transferable to living tissue.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
Donnie, I was referencing your reply to Emu. He said:
To which you replied:
You are offering the ballistic gel’s permanent channel as evidence contrary to his statement that .30 cal produces much more tissue damage. The gel’s permanent channel does not do that, which is what thefirearmblog article clarifies, but somehow the article supports your assertions?
To which you replied:
You are offering the ballistic gel’s permanent channel as evidence contrary to his statement that .30 cal produces much more tissue damage. The gel’s permanent channel does not do that, which is what thefirearmblog article clarifies, but somehow the article supports your assertions?
Upvote 0
In completely disagree of your statement, some months ago I published the following in these threads:
https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/final-formula-for-obtaining-the-hunting-energy-units-on-air-rifles/
I am convinced of my statements and my conviction is based on many, many years of hunting with air rifles, from white tailed deer to mice, and including up to now:
3 white tailed deer (all with .357)
6 javalina (.22, .25, .30 and .357)
5 coyotes (.25, .30 and .357)
4 wild turkey (.25, .30 and .357)
3 foxes (.22, and .30)
2 Racoons (.177 and .30)
Jackrabbits
Rabbits
Squirrels
Rats
Mice
Shot placement and a pellet with enough power to penetrate to vitals are the key, a sine qua non condition, but the amount of tissue damaged induces a faster and cleaner kill.
https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/final-formula-for-obtaining-the-hunting-energy-units-on-air-rifles/
I am convinced of my statements and my conviction is based on many, many years of hunting with air rifles, from white tailed deer to mice, and including up to now:
3 white tailed deer (all with .357)
6 javalina (.22, .25, .30 and .357)
5 coyotes (.25, .30 and .357)
4 wild turkey (.25, .30 and .357)
3 foxes (.22, and .30)
2 Racoons (.177 and .30)
Jackrabbits
Rabbits
Squirrels
Rats
Mice
Shot placement and a pellet with enough power to penetrate to vitals are the key, a sine qua non condition, but the amount of tissue damaged induces a faster and cleaner kill.
Upvote 0
You are free to disagree as you choose, but in essence we do not.
Your last sentence demonstrates that we are entirely in agreement.
Your disagreement is to the fact that you seem to think a domed .30 caliber pellets will damage appreciably more tissue than a domed .25 caliber pellet.
It will not, and I will address this in Part II of my examination.
Concerning your invented HEU equation, I hate to tell you that it's inherently flawed.
For starters, there is already an accepted formula for density, and it is mass divided by volume.
Length times diameter will not give you the volume of a pellet or a slug.
I haven't the foggiest idea where your equation for penetration comes from, or how length minus diameter could be relevant to it, but there is no way that equation would predict the penetration of anything.
What you call "punch" seems to PROBABLY relate to the physical principal known as "impulse"...which is the integral of force in relation to time.
Again, that is an established and accepted formula.
While I applaud your efforts, I wholeheartedly disagree with your "formula" and conclusions.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
So, the outcome of this logic is: a .177 shooting at equal energy is the most lethal.
I’ll have to test it on squirrels.
Keep up the good work Donnie!
Tom H.
Team Wolf Pack Daystate
LOLOL
The difference there might be a BIT more substantial.
-Donnie
Upvote 0
I never said I wanted a Nobel because of my formula. It was just a try to figure out how to measure "killing power of an Airgun". Foot pounds you also agree that should not be the way to measure it. If you have the studies in phisics and Maths (that I do not have) and could improve my proposed formula, I really would appreciate it.
My original question was: same foot pound in a. 22, a. 25 and a. 30 Cal, should imply same killing power?
Your answer and my answer to such question is: No!!
- You say that the better penetration (apparently achieved with less diameter) is better.
- I say that the bigger the damage in vitals, the faster the kill.
With. 177 pellets I have pass thru birds and it taken time for the bird to finally die.
With. 30 rabbits do not move after the receiving the pellet.
Look at this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_gp3XkcNTg
Cristal clear!!!
My original question was: same foot pound in a. 22, a. 25 and a. 30 Cal, should imply same killing power?
Your answer and my answer to such question is: No!!
- You say that the better penetration (apparently achieved with less diameter) is better.
- I say that the bigger the damage in vitals, the faster the kill.
With. 177 pellets I have pass thru birds and it taken time for the bird to finally die.
With. 30 rabbits do not move after the receiving the pellet.
Look at this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_gp3XkcNTg
Cristal clear!!!
Upvote 0
As I read this post, I find it fascinating , especially with the principles of applied force in contrast with the surface area of said projectile. These ratios are always debated, me being a bit weary and less energetic than I was 35 years ago to attempt to figure these energy and penetration abilities I would have conducted my own field test. Now since the butcher friend was going after 200 pound range hogs, I would have tested my pellets with a 1x6 piece of red oak lumber at the target distance to check penetration- it goes through that , it will go through thick skull. I’m not sure, but if the H&N hornet came in 30. It would work at 70 FPE. Just my humble belief.
Upvote 0
I would tend to agree.
I've tested the H&N Hornet for penetration in the past versus domed all lead pellets and the difference was substantial.
The test was very rudimentary and low budget...but it clearly illustrates the difference.
It's long and tedious, but with some cool videography if you care to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwyHVa90WxY
Upvote 0
I can't see how the preceding video has much to do with the argument. There's no mention of the projectile or the energy level of either the 22 or the 25. That video is more a comparison between the two guns, both unmentioned and unknown. It's hard to make any kind of logical assert assertation due to the lacking information
Upvote 0
I want to give an example of stopping power.
The Cal used by professional hunters for stopping cape Buffalo in Africa is a super wide one. That means that a larger Cal transfer more energy, even at slow speed of the projectile.
In demolition companies, to make a building to fall down they use a very heavy iron ball that do not even moves at the fps of a Daisy bb gun.
The Cal used by professional hunters for stopping cape Buffalo in Africa is a super wide one. That means that a larger Cal transfer more energy, even at slow speed of the projectile.
In demolition companies, to make a building to fall down they use a very heavy iron ball that do not even moves at the fps of a Daisy bb gun.
Upvote 0
Not a particularly relevant thing, IMO. From everything I've read, cape buffalo can be very difficult to stop with anything. And considering the numbers of small game species that have been taken with .177 air guns, air gun performance has little relation to the above.
Upvote 0