RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'll repeat... if you're going to kill me then please don't use a .177 cal pellet gun. I don't trust your aim to be that perfect. Please use something that causes far more damage and is far more forgiving of imprecision than a .177 cal pellet. How many of us can state with full certainty that we can be perfectly precise each and every time? IMO, it's silly and on the verge of cruelty that's fueled by arrogance and sociopathy.
*facepalm*
First of all, nobody here has advocated using a .177 pelllet for self-defense. The OP is only concerned about its use for hunting big game, such as hogs. Specifically, he's concerned about the ethics and safety of using such a weapon, especially given the more effective means available.
And if the .177 pellet (at 1700 fps) can acheive the penetration, then what difference would it make anyway if the hole in your heart is .177, .357, or .454?
This "perfectly precise" standard you mention makes no sense, either. A 9mm at 1100 fps through the arm is only marginally more deadly than a .177 through the arm at 1700 fps for any given penetration path. Miss a vital area with ANY round and its effectiveness is drastically diminished.
I'm not saying mass makes no difference...it most certainly does. But we aren't talking about cheap BB guns here, which is what I think most people have pictured in their minds whenever they hear "air gun" or "pellet gun".
Certainly a small mass at any velocity requires more attention to accuracy and a commitment to ensuring a kill because smaller mass bullets can much more easily be deflected, even if no bone is encountered.
What if a hunter wanted to go after hogs using an atlatl? Much the same arguments could be said against spear hunting, yet mankind obviously had great success with this method in our ancient history. Why? Because our ancestors understood what the weapon could and could not do and devised effective tactics to best utilize it accordingly. Just ask the Mammoths. Oh wait...