would you stalk with a bow if it was legal?

[scottybhoy88]

Personally I don't think there is any place for it in modern day stalking. I have a lot of respect for the animals that I kill and when we have more efficient means of doing so at our disposal then I don't see why we should be using such primitive methods.

 

[BuckarooUK]

I'd have to see it 1st hand in order to form an opinion. To me the argument about the bow being 'prehistoric' or 'outdated' is just stupid - its all about the placement of the shot and competence of the hunter for me.

If i determine that the animal will suffer regardless of the hunters competence and shot placement then i'm against, but if not then who am i to slate another method of hunting.

There are some i wouldn't allow to hunt at all regardless if using a rifle or a bow!

 

[Number8]

To take a more positive note: it is possible to make a very deadly air rifle. In the Napoleonic wars, the Austrians had a unit equipped with repeating air rifles. These were acccurate and effective on humans at 100m apparently. They fired 13mm lead balls.
it would be interesting to see what the actual ballistics were. You never know, it might be possible to produce an effective PCP stalking rifle using modern materials, methods and tolerances. For all I know it's already been done.

 

[IanF]

You never know, it might be possible to produce an effective PCP stalking rifle using modern materials, methods and tolerances. For all I know it's already been done.

You guessed right! Over in the States, high powered hunting air-rifles have been used for Pigs and deer for some time. .45 & .50 cal high power stuff is well up to deer level quarry. What amazed me was to find folks using .177 (albeit at 1650fps) on PIGS!

http://www.gamousa.com/videoplayer....irguns.com/gamoairguns/videos/hog_hunt_22.flv

Regarding Bow hunting - well, what I have seen convinces me that it is humane and efficient, with the usual caveats of needing to be competent with your tool of choice prior to going out hunting! All the concerns about noise, disturbance and over penetration are minimized ( yes, I know an arrow will 'pass through' - but it ain't carrying on for 3000m! ) and that can only be a good thing.

Rgds

Ian

 

[conibear]

i'd have to see it 1st hand in order to form an opinion. To me the argument about the bow being 'prehistoric' or 'outdated' is just stupid - its all about the placement of the shot and competence of the hunter for me.

If i determine that the animal will suffer regardless of the hunters competence and shot placement then i'm against, but if not then who am i to slate another method of hunting.

There are some i wouldn't allow to hunt at all regardless if using a rifle or a bow!

good post!!!

 

[Number8]

Wow! My Logun Axor is due for a service. I wonder what it could be made to do in the right hands?
Thanks for that.
D

 

[conibear]

http://gamoairguns.com/gamoairguns/videos/hog_hunt_22.flv

Regarding Bow hunting - well, what I have seen convinces me that it is humane and efficient, with the usual caveats of needing to be competent with your tool of choice prior to going out hunting! All the concerns about noise, disturbance and over penetration are minimized ( yes, I know an arrow will 'pass through' - but it ain't carrying on for 3000m! ) and that can only be a good thing.

Rgds

Ian[/QUOTE]

I AGREE 100%

bowhunting is normally very humane as the hunter is normally experienced!

and shoots the animal at very close range!

but your allways gona get inexperianced guys, who might make a bad shot! but that goes for rifle stalkers as well!

its all hyperthetical any way, as its highly unlikely to get legalised

cheers dan

 

[howa243]

I totally disagree with bow hunting. Can't see an argument for it.

 

[MJ75]

I totally disagree with bow hunting. Can't see an arguement for it.

I can see no issue with indiginous people hunting small game for food. It's larger game species shot by sport hunters that don't die as quickly as they would with a rifle shot I find barbaric.

 

[MJ75]

If you shoot a hare with a legal limit air rifle (at sensible range) in the brain or heart then it will kill it. However, there aren't many people out there after hares with airguns and those that are often move up to FAC rated air rifles or .22s when they cannot get within range. What they are after is rabbits and it would be utter nonsense to ban legal limit air rifles for either species on some-and I say it again-spurious welfare grounds.

"Spurious welfare grounds"? I think you'll find that any responsible air gun hunter would refrain from shooting a hare with a sub FAC rated pellet gun. Most sub FAC rasted air rifles only measure around the 10 to 11 ft lb energy mark when chronoed so please don't try and convince anyone this is a suitable weapon to hunt hares with!

There are perhaps air gunners who don't think it's right to shoot muntjac with .223s for example. However to propose a ban of a legitimate class of 'weapon' for a legitimate purpose in another branch of the sport is bad form at the very least.

Personally I think it's very bad form to suggest that an underpowered weapon is OK to use as it's legal?

Leave it alone before some smart alec anti picks up on it!

I think the only ammunition any anti's would pick up from this thread is people condoning the use of weapons in certain branches of the sport that are questioned by other experienced hunters. I do hope the irony doesn't escape you there...

 

[zaitsev]

To sum up: 'opinions vary'. By the way, there are hairs on hares but not vice versa

 

[MJ75]

All the concerns about noise, disturbance and over penetration are minimized ( yes, I know an arrow will 'pass through' - but it ain't carrying on for 3000m! ) and that can only be a good thing.

Rgds

Ian

Ian

Thing is, don't we only ever shoot when there is a safe backstop, don't we? So the 3000m comment isn't really relevant is it?

 

[paul k]

I'm in two minds, I've watched a lot of American DVDs on bowhunting and although it's not for me I'm not going to condemn it. My observations are that arrows are as lethal as bullets provided that they are well placed, shooting necessarily takes place at much closer ranges and requires generally greater stalking skill, the shot animals take a little longer to die than most bullet shot animals, they are however sometimes not greatly distressed and react as if stung by an insect and this in some way mitigates against the slightly longer time for the animal to die as they are clearly not traumatised or alarmed in many cases, and finally they and other nearby animals are not spooked by the shot.

 

[mash67]

It was Mrs Thactcher "wot banned it" with the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act". I don't like to see things banned but personally I would not do it as I think it has too many risks of wounding.

I did used to have a pistol on my FAC - a fine Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum - for shooting feral goats however!

What I would like to see banned is the use of ANY air weapon for shooting rabbits and hares under any circumstances except those "to hand" having been caught in snares or cage traps.

IMHO if you've a need to shoot rabbits and hares you've absolutely a need at a minimum for a s1 22 Rimfire or a s2 shot gun. But ANY air rifle - FAC "rated" or not - should be illegal.

what tosh is this

 

[User00023]

what tosh is this

Do have the courtesy to explain why you disagree with enfieldspares rather than simply post a rude dismissal. The whole point of a forum is to facilitate an exchange of views and opinions in courteous manner. If you are at odds with this principle please push off and be rude elsewhere.

 

[Schiehallion]

While bowhunting is popular and enthusiastically pursued on the American continent, the actual amount of large game taken by individual hunters is very small. For instance a hunter in the U.S may only get the chance to take one buck a year thus he would enthusiastically follow up any wounded deer as he may not get the chance of another!. Imagine the same possibilities here where a hunter may shoot 20 bucks a year. The consequences do not bear thinking about. We have a different ethos and approach to deer management here. I say stick to a decent calibre rifle.
Though I must say, I do fancy a crack with one of those hunting bows!.

 

[Harry mac]

Do have the courtesy to explain why you disagree with enfieldspares rather than simply post a rude dismissal. The whole point of a forum is to facilitate an exchange of views and opinions in courteous manner. If you are at odds with this principle please push off and be rude elsewhere.

I think he's refering to the air rifle remarks made by Enfieldspares.
I am a great enthusiast when it comes to all things Enfield, but I'll have to disagree with Enfieldspares on this point of view.
I have killed many rabbits, pigeons and rats with an air rifle and used properly they are an excellent tool for the job. I do, however, agree they aren't "man enough" for hares at 12ft/lbs.

 

[enfieldspares]

I've killed pigeons and rats too with an air rifle. Don't have a problem with it. Although I seen pigeons mis-shot and wounded with air rifles.

But as I said I don't think any air rifle "man" enough for hare and marginal on rabbit. I read too much nonsense in some of the shooting press about "headshots at fifty yards" on rabbits with a .177".

Either these guys never miss or they lie about when it goes wrong. I've mis-shot a rabbit once with a .22 Hornet at 100 yards (it took the jaw clean off and needed a dog to gather it to hand) to know that a mis-shot with something even of that power won't kill.

The problem with any air rifle is not whether it has the energy to kill a hare or rabbit or not (although I think it marginal) but that it is too affected by variations in distance and wind to be consistently accurate under hunting conditions.

The trajectory is too rainbow like to ensure that if the range is mis-estimated at thirty-eight yards instead of thirty-four yards that the pellet will strike where it was aimed. And the velocity too slow to either "buck" the wind or cover any sudden movement of the animal.

And if a mis-timed shot with a .22 Hornet on a rabbit isn't up to the job when badly placed I know that a badly placed shot with ANY air rifle FAC or not won't be either. The energy is marginal and the placing of the shot critical.

No air rifle and no air rifle shooter is that consistent under real hunting conditions. And accuracy - £ for £ in cost - compared to even the cheapest BSA Sportsman-5 or BRNO 2E is laughable.

 

[MJ75]

what tosh is this

I have no ida. You wrote it. And without any explanation.

 

[mash67]

I’m sorry for no explanation but I logged of after posting.

Well first of all of course you are entitled to and answer, it was really about the air rifle remark.

I am sure that there are many many shooters/hunters that use non fac air rifles to more than good effect on rabbits, not sure about hares though.

Air rifles as you know are nowadays very accurate and also very consitent,they do have quite a looping trajectory and if your serious about hunting with one a hunter should practise until proficient at estimating range and holdover or adjust the scope. Once proficiency is established then they are more than capable of despatching rabbits humanely. The distance would be down to the individual behind the gun.

Is there a difference between this and becoming proficient with any other weapon before it is taken hunting? A .22 rimfire also has a rainbow trajectory if use at longer distance as does any fullbore rifle. Surely it is about the experience of the individual

There are as your probably aware far more eloquent writers than myself, perhaps for a better understanding post the same quote on an airgun site and get a feeling for their sport hobby.

Lastly. Do we really need to disparage other types of legal shooting disciplines or hunting should we not all stay together?
I’ve read too many threads on many shooting forums that are negative and I’ll informed or just put up as a discussion piece and wonder if they do more harm than good

Regards
Matt