I was wondering what is considered to be the minimum amount of energy (on impact) required to humanely dispatch pests with a .177cal air rifle. Correct shot placement taken into consideration.
Minimum amount of energy required
- Thread starter Corvid_hunter
- Start date
Saw this on another page but I believe its referencing FPE at the muzzle... Its subjective and very debatable though, so take it accordingly. The page has a lot of discussion regarding the subject and can easily be found by searching "FPE feathers and fur" on your fav engine. Im not sure how linking to the page directly would be taken here, so Ill leave that to you to search. I find this to be an interesting topic, so I look forward to others opinions here.
1) Gray squirrel/Fox Squirrel - 6 FPE head, 9 FPE vitals
2) Eastern Cottontail/Swamp Rabbit - 5FPE head, 8 FPE vitals
3) Jack Rabbit White, Black, and Jack O' lope - 8 FPE head, 11 FPE vitals
4) Raccoon/ Bandit - 14 FPE head, 22 FPE vitals
5) Virginia Opossum/ Country Rat - 10 FPE head, 16 FPE vitals
6) Ground Hog/ Wood Chuck - 11 FPE head, 17 Vitals
7) Gray Fox - 11 FPE head, 18 vitals
8. Red Fox - 12 FPE head, 19 vitals
9) Bobcat - 15 FPE head, 25 vitals
10) Bullfrog - 5 FPE head or vitals
11) Snapping Turtle - 9 FPE head
12) Crow - 4 FPE head, 6 FPE vitals
13) Pigeon - 4 FPE head, 6 FPE vitals
14) Sparrow - 3 FPE head, 5 FPE vitals
15) Starling - 4 FPE head, 5 FPE vitals
1) Gray squirrel/Fox Squirrel - 6 FPE head, 9 FPE vitals
2) Eastern Cottontail/Swamp Rabbit - 5FPE head, 8 FPE vitals
3) Jack Rabbit White, Black, and Jack O' lope - 8 FPE head, 11 FPE vitals
4) Raccoon/ Bandit - 14 FPE head, 22 FPE vitals
5) Virginia Opossum/ Country Rat - 10 FPE head, 16 FPE vitals
6) Ground Hog/ Wood Chuck - 11 FPE head, 17 Vitals
7) Gray Fox - 11 FPE head, 18 vitals
8. Red Fox - 12 FPE head, 19 vitals
9) Bobcat - 15 FPE head, 25 vitals
10) Bullfrog - 5 FPE head or vitals
11) Snapping Turtle - 9 FPE head
12) Crow - 4 FPE head, 6 FPE vitals
13) Pigeon - 4 FPE head, 6 FPE vitals
14) Sparrow - 3 FPE head, 5 FPE vitals
15) Starling - 4 FPE head, 5 FPE vitals
Upvote 0
These kinda data points mean almost nothing. Folks will argue till they are blue in the face, and nobody is right.
They don't take into account the pellet shape, or a myriad of other "requirements", some of which aren't even measurable or repeatable.
I've put a .177 through both shoulders of a squirrel at 35 yards, from a gun shooting 11fpe at the muzzle.
I've also made the same shot with a 28fpe .22 and got the same penetration.
I've also made both shots with the same guns and different occasions and got different results. So what gives right?
The common theme in all cases, was I had almost instant kills and obviously enough power.
If you don't feel confident in your equipment, it's not enough. Simple as that.
I hunt squirrels and rabbits with guns as low as 6fpe at the muzzle in .177 and it works fine at realistic ranges. I haven't had one bounce off yet.
One thing I will mention to be advised of, is deflection. So you pick your quarry, read these stats and you have "enough" power based on the info you read from who knows where. The animal presents a perfect front on head shot, you take your shot, and watch the pellet zing off the critters head and it wander off. Beavers, raccoons especially. Just another one of those variables that is convenient to leave out of these equations..
They don't take into account the pellet shape, or a myriad of other "requirements", some of which aren't even measurable or repeatable.
I've put a .177 through both shoulders of a squirrel at 35 yards, from a gun shooting 11fpe at the muzzle.
I've also made the same shot with a 28fpe .22 and got the same penetration.
I've also made both shots with the same guns and different occasions and got different results. So what gives right?
The common theme in all cases, was I had almost instant kills and obviously enough power.
If you don't feel confident in your equipment, it's not enough. Simple as that.
I hunt squirrels and rabbits with guns as low as 6fpe at the muzzle in .177 and it works fine at realistic ranges. I haven't had one bounce off yet.
One thing I will mention to be advised of, is deflection. So you pick your quarry, read these stats and you have "enough" power based on the info you read from who knows where. The animal presents a perfect front on head shot, you take your shot, and watch the pellet zing off the critters head and it wander off. Beavers, raccoons especially. Just another one of those variables that is convenient to leave out of these equations..
Upvote 0
Agreed bullet construction should be talked about more than fpe. What I do to make sure I have enough tool for the job is just test it. Shoot through apples and tin cans and you can even make your own ballistics gel using Knox jello. Chances are that if you pick a good hunting pellet and have an accurate gun you should be fine. I've killed squirrel with a 6 fpe multi pump and it was ethical. All those numbers really are useless.
Upvote 0
The thing that sucks about .177 is over penetration! does not transfer energy as well as the .22 pellet.
Upvote 0
Guess that depends on the shot placement. A good vital shot with both lungs pierced(sucking chest wound) you don’t need energy transfer neither do brain shots. However it is a little less forgive with bad shot placement.
I dropped a fat skunk last night digging up my yard and garden with 14.5 FPE 177 vital shot and it did not make it pass the 10 yard line. Also zero issues dropping big fox squirrels with 7fpe on impact on vitals.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Thanks for all the replys. I was thinking that 6fpe (on impact) would be a good lower number to look at for range limits on hunting pests with proper shot placement.
Upvote 0
No spray at all, I've gotten a few skunks already(4-5) and with vital shot none of them sprayed.
Upvote 0
I have shot groundhogs with slugs pushing 180 fpe bodyshots, and they've run off to bury themselves like they weren't even shot. So that 17 fpe for bodyshots may be a kill shot, but it isn't gonna stop them in their tracks.
What I think should be emphasize is the type of ammo used is just as important (if not more important) than the amount of power. I've determined than FX Hybrid Slugs are extremely deadly at all distances, and JSB Hades are an excellent choice under 50 yards if your gun isn't accurate with slugs.
What I think should be emphasize is the type of ammo used is just as important (if not more important) than the amount of power. I've determined than FX Hybrid Slugs are extremely deadly at all distances, and JSB Hades are an excellent choice under 50 yards if your gun isn't accurate with slugs.
Upvote 0
Perfesser Beeman rote thet it took les then 4 fpe at tha target tu kil a skwirl er rabitt provide you hit em in tha he’d. He figgered a 6 fpe gun ud do tha job under twenny yards.
Ah lahk a gun what makes better then 12 fpe in .22 fer skwirls but ah hav popped a buncha skwirls with a 7-8 fpe Crosman 2100.
Ah lahk a gun what makes better then 12 fpe in .22 fer skwirls but ah hav popped a buncha skwirls with a 7-8 fpe Crosman 2100.
Upvote 0
Bullet pass through doesn't have less lethality. It's not great for safety concerns or property damage but the idea that energy dumping is a more effective way to kill doesn't make sense. Tissue damage kills not energy dumping. You can kill efficiently with pass through or you can kill with non pass through. Head shots can be incredibly effective with ammo that dumps energy with very little penetration in fact edgun leshiy channel has several instant kill shots where a big 25 or 30 bounces off the head. A clean pass through makes them just as dead tho. I hunt alot and I can tell you that I prefer pass through unless I'm working around equipment or cows or something. Also 177 is not just an indoor target caliber that doesn't kill well. Soooo many dead squirrels and rabbit would argue that point. Our friends in the UK use sub 12 fpe almost exclusively and do quite well.
Upvote 0
I agree with you on a full passthrough has the same lethality as a round that doesn't, but a full passthrough doesn't have the knockdown power of a round that dumps its remaining energy, as that's just physics.
There are 4 ways a round can incapacitate game, and that is from destruction of the circulatory, respiratory, nervous and skeletal systems. The primary cause of death with airguns is either through destruction of the central nervous system with a headshot, or through blood loss. Quite often game that has taken a lethal hit aren't incapacitated, and they could run off so they can't be recovered. A round that dumps energy in the prey can disrupt other portions of the nervous system or respiratory system that will prevent the prey from running off until they succumb to blood loss.
Take a look at this video I made where I contrast shots in ballistic gel to shots on game for ammo effectiveness.
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
I know the government said in the old pine board experiment that it's about 4FPE at target to kill a human with a chest shot. Granted this was using FMJ ammo, but in the end it was only 4FPE. Pretty low. I have takin coyotes at 20 yards with 25FPE out of a .22 airgun. Dead within 30 seconds. Yes, it was not the immediate drop, last howl at the moon type kill, but effective non the less. IMHO you can't really "over do FPE", just overdo FPE for the shooting space and environment you are shooting in.
Upvote 0
For any given shot placement, the most lethal shot is the one that penetrates deeply enough to pass through vital organs and dissipates maximal energy in doing so. It doesn’t necessarily need to pass through the skin on the other side. Internal bleeding is just as good as external bleeding.
Say I shot a squirrel with a round-nose pellet arriving with 25fpe of terminal energy. It passes through both lungs and exits the opposite side of the squirrel. Say I have a chronograph on the other side and I measure the exit velocity and find the pellet had 10fpe of residual energy. Meaning it dissipated 15fpe in the squirrel’s tissue.
But say I shot the same squirrel in exactly the same place, except this time with a wadcutter. The wadcutter has shed more velocity by the time it arrives, and therefore has only 20fpe rather than 25fpe. It again passes through both lungs and comes to a stop under the skin on the opposite side. This time 20fpe has been dissipated, an additional 5fpe over the round nose. Meaning in both scenarios, the same two lungs have four holes in them...but in the case of the wadcutters, the tissue sustained more damage precisely because it dissipated more energy.
Now of course as a practical matter, a wadcutter (or a hollow point) may not be the best choice because hunting presents many variables like a range of shooting distances. It may be that a dome is the only one with sufficient accuracy to meet the upper end of the range. And what are the chances that the shots presented will have any uniformity to them such that I could maximize the amount of damage by putting the pellet through multiple vital organs on every shot? And so forth.
But there are certainly pest control scenarios where all shots are the same distance (or within a narrow enough range) that one can trade off a bit of accuracy in favor of terminal performance and come out ahead.
Say I shot a squirrel with a round-nose pellet arriving with 25fpe of terminal energy. It passes through both lungs and exits the opposite side of the squirrel. Say I have a chronograph on the other side and I measure the exit velocity and find the pellet had 10fpe of residual energy. Meaning it dissipated 15fpe in the squirrel’s tissue.
But say I shot the same squirrel in exactly the same place, except this time with a wadcutter. The wadcutter has shed more velocity by the time it arrives, and therefore has only 20fpe rather than 25fpe. It again passes through both lungs and comes to a stop under the skin on the opposite side. This time 20fpe has been dissipated, an additional 5fpe over the round nose. Meaning in both scenarios, the same two lungs have four holes in them...but in the case of the wadcutters, the tissue sustained more damage precisely because it dissipated more energy.
Now of course as a practical matter, a wadcutter (or a hollow point) may not be the best choice because hunting presents many variables like a range of shooting distances. It may be that a dome is the only one with sufficient accuracy to meet the upper end of the range. And what are the chances that the shots presented will have any uniformity to them such that I could maximize the amount of damage by putting the pellet through multiple vital organs on every shot? And so forth.
But there are certainly pest control scenarios where all shots are the same distance (or within a narrow enough range) that one can trade off a bit of accuracy in favor of terminal performance and come out ahead.
Upvote 0
In the end, the best round is determined by the type of game you're using it on. A rear quartering shot on a big coyote will prefer something different than a squirrel or groundhog.
Additionally, this brings out the importance of ammo design regardless of caliber.
Upvote 0
I respect everyone's opinion here. Mine differs quite a bit from most folks. I don't actually agree that knock down power is a thing. I've had hundreds of kills if you count everything I've shot from 8 years old with a crosman 760 to now. I've shot animals with 177 pellets to 308 powder burners. From what I can tell how deep it goes is everything for the exception of any bullet traveling past 2200 fps. For some reason damage seems to increase insanely after that velocity regardless of caliber or weather or not the bullet stops inside the animal. I know this isn't popular but it is my experience. An aside for large animals I prefer pass through for the blood trail and sucking chest wound effect. I have shot 3 deer with a 308 that stopped inside the deer and they ran farther than a clean pass through with my 243. Similar results with pellet guns. I have never had a squirrel for example get anchored by a 22cal that missed vitals or a 25 for that matter that a 177 hitting vitals wouldn't kill faster. I could be wrong but at this point I trust my experience more than others experience. Honestly I could be wrong but it just seems like I have a good understanding at this point
Upvote 0