Shooting flying stuff

[vengeance111]

I was out this morning just messing around with my 50 year old meteor (my lightning was being repaired) and I thought it would be fun to shoot some tin cans that I threw into the air. To my amazement, I hit several of them the pellet going through both sides

Has anyone else tried this, and do you reckon shooting flying pigeons will be possible ?

[poontang]

and do you reckon shooting flying pigeons will be possible ?

 

:lol:

 

 

Anything's possible.

 

If you can consistently hit a 10p piece flying through the air at 40mph and 25yards out then go for it.

[vengeance111]

10 pence piece ?

I think the kill zone on a flying bird is a bit bigger than that

[Catweazle]

I was out this morning just messing around with my 50 year old meteor (my lightning was being repaired) and I thought it would be fun to shoot some tin cans that I threw into the air. To my amazement, I hit several of them the pellet going through both sides

Has anyone else tried this, and do you reckon shooting flying pigeons will be possible ?

 

This is a joke, right ?

[poontang]

10 pence piece ?

I think the kill zone on a flying bird is a bit bigger than that

 

The kill zone using an air rifle would be the head.

[vengeance111]

This is a joke, right ?

nah I believe its perfectly possible, anyway look what I just found

[Hamster]

What is possible and what is doable are two entirely different things. The trick gun in the video is not in the same league as your average single shot type most use, I could see myself bringing down close flying pigeon without any type of sighting let alone telescope, using that thing. In my younger days I have hit flying ferals with a break barrel .177 but I used to practically live with that gun and I certainly wouldn't advocate it in any shape or form.

[sitsinhedges]

nah I believe its perfectly possible, anyway look what I just found

 

You could probably find a video of someone sticking their head in a combine harvester too, are you going to copy that aswell.

 

This forum seems to have more than its fair share of trolls and idiots hellbent on giving our sport a bad name recently.

[vengeance111]

I don't really see why it would give the sport a bad name, your right though it would be very challenging, but think of the satisfaction when you do get one

[Catweazle]

I don't really see why it would give the sport a bad name, your right though it would be very challenging, but think of the satisfaction when you do get one

 

You are clearly an idiot, perhaps a BB gun would suit you better.

[WelshLamb]

Cant you lot talk about ANYTHING without arguing over it!

[Hamster]

I don't really see why it would give the sport a bad name, your right though it would be very challenging, but think of the satisfaction when you do get one

 

 

The reason it would give our sport a bad name is the haphazard chancy nature of going about it, it is guaranteed to result in wounding and would look utterly irresponsible too. Airguns are low power precision tools designed to kill at close range so long as you can manage to hit a tiny area of the quarry, usually the head. Flinging the gun up at moving quarry is best left to shotguns.

[vengeance111]

You are clearly an idiot, perhaps a BB gun would suit you better.

why am I an idiot for suggesting it ?

[HDAV]

IF your as good as this guy you have a bright future:

Edited October 28, 2011 by HDAV

[-Mongrel-]

I don't really see why it would give the sport a bad name, your right though it would be very challenging, but think of the satisfaction when you do get one

 

 

The problem is that it would be extremely difficult and, in order to get good enough to consistently head shoot pigeons would require a LOT of practice. That practice would have to involve missing a lot too and injuring birds, that's why it is unacceptable and wold give the sport a bad name.

 

Wounding is not a good option. We all strive to kill cleanly and indeed should do so, we have to accept that occasional wounding is going to happen but you should try to minimise it. In this case it would mean not shooting at flying birds.

 

I recently started a thread about a similar issue and got caned on it by a couple of people who were...rather extreme in their views, but the difference was I was trying to find out why and how to reduce the probability AND I am using the right tool for the job.

[Hamster]

I killed a sparrow with a dart once, true story but it was before Youtube . Aboriginals kill stuff with boomerangs don't they? Lets all go out and try it on decoyed pigeon.

[vengeance111]

IF your as good as this guy you have a bright future:

thats basically what I was doing this morning, but with tin cans, and a rifle and I threw them so they werent going as fast

I think the problem would be that my rifle only has telescopic sights, so it would be harder as the field of view is way smaller

[HDAV]

well you should go and get a bow and a quiver of arrows and get practising with the tennis balls

[vengeance111]

now that WOULD be difficult, everyone go out tomorrow and shoot some flying tin cans, its really not as hard as it seems

[Wharf Rat]

now that WOULD be difficult, everyone go out tomorrow and shoot some flying tin cans, its really not as hard as it seems

 

 

Used to practise that with my Dad. If I remember rightly, you have to wait until the can is at the top of its flight, where it hangs in the air for a split second before descending again. Don't think I would practise on anything living though...

 

Norman Mailer reckoned you could hit a thrown pebble with a centrefire in The Naked and the Dead. I wouldn't try that either.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Wharf Rat

[Zapp]

That video of the guy with the tricked up airgun whanging pellets everywhere is pretty morally bankrupt, as is the idea of trying to take live, flying quarry with an airgun.

 

Beyond that, troll topic. Thats all.

[vengeance111]

That video of the guy with the tricked up airgun whanging pellets everywhere is pretty morally bankrupt, as is the idea of trying to take live, flying quarry with an airgun.

 

Beyond that, troll topic. Thats all.

why is that man 'morally bankrupt' when I doubt you would describe all the shotgun users out there that

[bruno22rf]

The guy in the clip was using a repeating airgun which would give him considerably more firepower than a normal single shot jobbie.....but this still does'nt mean that the guy does'nt deserve a kick in the nuts.How many of those pellets took a birds foot off or put a hole in the gut thus causing a slow lingering death?If you cannot see what is wrong with this behaviour then might I suggest that you consider taking up some other hobby? And as for comparing an airgun to a shotgun-where a shotgun has more power in its ignition cap than an airgun and fires in excess of 300 potentially lethal projectiles-what the heck are you smoking???

Edited October 28, 2011 by bruno22rf

[HDAV]

why is that man 'morally bankrupt' when I doubt you would describe all the shotgun users out there that

mmm shot gun 3-500 pellets travelling at 1400 fps with 30" spread...... compared to 1 pellet .177" or .22" travelling at 800 fps ish.

 

 

Yeah exactly the same! :o

 

I smell under bridge dwellers :yp:

Edited October 28, 2011 by HDAV

[demonwolf444]

its not as hard as it seems, when i was younger i used to get my sister to lob those little tonic water cans you get from sainsburys about 15 feet in to the air then i would shoot it, i was lucky to have the space growing up where i did, but in fairness i never hit them every time and when i did they were only like 5 feet off the ground and about 10 feet or less away from me, would be sick if you could do it at 40 yrds... but deffinately dont shoot a pigeon or anything with it!? its just going to end up wounded, a shotgun only works by causing mass trauma to the vital organs, a single .22 or .177 wouldnt do it, unless you were VERY GOOD. IMHO not a good idea, dont do it.