# Hunting ammo weight



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

I hear lots of people talking about hunting ammo size and weight. It seems people fall into two camps really, light and fast and slow and heavy. I think that above all else it should be an efficient set up that will reliably take the game that you are hunting. Too light and it won't kill and too heavy and it has a trajectory of a mortar, neither is good for hunting. However I think at slingshot hunting ranges trajectory is much less important than energy, most slingshot hunters set a range limit of 60 ft or less, at these ranges with a good bandset, tubes or flats, I really don't think trajectory plays that big a roll, within reason of course.

Also, everyone always talks about headshots. Despite the outstanding accuracy demonstrated on here I doubt that the average hunter is capable of headshots on most slingshot size game, most of the time, so I am looking for a rig that will put game on the ground with virtually any solid hit at slingshot hunting ranges. You should always TRY for a headshot but I think a good dose of reality needs to be injected into the discussion. Put up a target the size of a quarter at 10m and see how many times you can hit it out of 10, this is the size of most of our quarry's head.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

I can't say that I disagree with you. Above all else, one needs to be accurate. Personally, I just do not shoot at game at over 10 meters ... 33 feet. I know my personal chances of actually killing something beyond that range go way, way down. There is nothing quite so awful as that sick feeling in your gut when you watch your game gimp away and you are unable to find it.

As everyone here knows, I fall into the "heavy" range ... about 130 grains or so, moving at 175-200 fps. If I make a head or neck shot on game with that, no matter what the game, it is the end of the line. On the other hand, if I strike the shoulder side-on, or hit the rib cage from the side or front, or hit the back bone, then the game will go down and I will be able to get to it. With lighter ammo, I am more likely to just injure the game. The other good thing about heavy ammo is that it is much less likely to be deflected by weeds or twigs ... big stuff just plows right on through.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Put me in a third camp, big and not so slow, say .44 lead (~125 grains) at about 230 fps, or .50 cal lead (180 grain) at 200+ fps. Either speed is achievable with looped 1842 tubes at a manageable pull. Unfortunately, I can't hunt here, so my theories are just that, theories. I still have hopes of recovering my sight well enough to hunt and spending a hunting season on my land in Texas before I get too old. Charles has the experience and I trust his guidance.


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

Ok, perhaps it would have been better to say " light and fast and heavy and not quite as fast".

One of the main things I wanted to point out with this post is that in hunting situations trajectory plays very little part. The difference in trajectory is practically nil between 9.5mm steel at 280 fps and 12.7 lead at 200 fps at 33 ft, a good all round hunting range, the difference in killing power is drastic.

Here is a handy calculator and chart of round ball weights, obviously the calculator is for air rifles but works equally well for catapults.

http://www.airguns.net/calculators.php

Lead: http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/roundball.htm

Steel: http://americandad.biz/chromechart.htm


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Henry in Panama said:


> Put me in a third camp, big and not so slow, say .44 lead (~125 grains) at about 230 fps, or .50 cal lead (180 grain) at 200+ fps. Either speed is achievable with looped 1842 tubes at a manageable pull. Unfortunately, I can't hunt here, so my theories are just that, theories. I still have hopes of recovering my sight well enough to hunt and spending a hunting season on my land in Texas before I get too old. Charles has the experience and I trust his guidance.


Henry, I agree with you fully ... heavy and fast is better than heavy and slow, for sure. I freely admit that I have not hunted with those 1842 tubes ... I use flats. Personally, I find .50 lead to be too heavy for the bands I shoot ... that is my personal outer limit. For the bands I find comfortable, the trajectory of .5 lead is a bit too much of an arc. I do like .44 lead ... it is my second choice, with those 3/8 x .5 lead cylinders being my first choice.

I would not put too much emphasis on trusting my guidance ... everyone needs to find what works for them. If you are comfortable getting 200 fps with .5 lead, then go for it. One thing is certain ... if you hit your game with that, then the party is over!

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Clever Moniker (May 12, 2013)

I don't even know anymore... there are so many variations of size of ammo and bands its crazy.

You don't think head-shots are reasonable though within 30ft? I dunno, I think that would be reasonable if one practiced a lot...

Clever Moniker


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

No I don't. In perfect situations yes but at steep angles around and through brush, different distances, basically hunting situations I think it is beyond most slingshot hunters capabilities. With pigeons, doves squirrels and rabbits we are talking about a spot a couple of inches across max.

Slingshot shooters are considered to be very good shots if they can put the majority of their shots in the bottom of a coke can at 33 ft a doves head or, ducks for that matter, is smaller than that.

EDIT: Let me make myself clear I always aim for the head, with the only exception a bird with his back towards me then I aim center mass, but I like to have enough power to reasonably put game on the ground if I miss the head and hit the body.


----------



## ceedub (Apr 22, 2013)

Head shots kill things, I cannot argue that fact. But, BUT! I do not, Do not try for head shots! They are not necessary for most small game that you should be trying to kill with a slingshot. I can and have put a .45 cal lead ball cleanly through the shoulder, ribs, and opposite shoulder of a rabbit. Done. Dead. Right there. Ribs and shoulder are a larger target with more vital organs. Deer hunters do not head shoot for a clean humane kill, they shoot for ribs. Police do not shoot for the head to stop a bad guy, they shoot for chest cavity. Shooting for the head only means success if your successful at hitting the head. So why not shoot a target area twice the size with the same guarantee of striking a kill shot. Having said that you need to shoot heavy ammo to break bones. Shoot that heavy ammo with bands that are as heavy and fast as your back, wrist and shoulder can handle consistently. Its simple


----------



## stej (Jan 16, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> Put me in a third camp, big and not so slow, say .44 lead (~125 grains) at about 230 fps, or .50 cal lead (180 grain) at 200+ fps. Either speed is achievable with looped 1842 tubes at a manageable pull. Unfortunately, I can't hunt here, so my theories are just that, theories. I still have hopes of recovering my sight well enough to hunt and spending a hunting season on my land in Texas before I get too old. Charles has the experience and I trust his guidance.


Henry, what's your setup for the 1842 tubes? What length and draw length? Also when compared to 1745, is the pull lighter?


----------



## stej (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not a hunter, but I was also thinking about the ammo size. Consider you have a stone, quite a big one. How large it might be? 1 inch? Or more? Some people use big stones for hunting.

This stone is much more likely to hit the target (head) than 0.4 lead (considering you have good pouch release etc.) just because it's size. Maybe this is also one aspect to keep in mind..


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

its true, at short distance trajectory dont matter much, its a zip line. once your aim/target goes farther out, then it becomes a variable. thats why its important to get to know your slingshot and the set up your planning on using, get to know your slingshots limitations and yours also. and practice, practice, practice.


----------



## SuperMonkeySlinger (Jan 28, 2013)

I like this thread.

But! I will have to disagree on taking body shots on pigeons. Its to risky. If you aim for the head and your ammo drops ( because of distance or ammo weight ) Then your next hope of killing the bird is hitting the crop in a pigeon, then the heart.

I've seen pigeons fly away with 12.7mm Steel in them. My uncle learned the hard way on that.

On big birds like pigeons, I would never take a body shot. Because if i aim for the head i have a bigger chance of killing it even if ny ammo drops and inch lower then i wanted it to ( hitting the heart ) .

I do not mean any disrespect to anyone.

SMS


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

stej said:


> Henry in Panama said:
> 
> 
> > Put me in a third camp, big and not so slow, say .44 lead (~125 grains) at about 230 fps, or .50 cal lead (180 grain) at 200+ fps. Either speed is achievable with looped 1842 tubes at a manageable pull. Unfortunately, I can't hunt here, so my theories are just that, theories. I still have hopes of recovering my sight well enough to hunt and spending a hunting season on my land in Texas before I get too old. Charles has the experience and I trust his guidance.
> ...


For general plinking, I cut the tubes 14 inches long and use about 1/2 inch for the pouch tie, giving me a working length of about 6 3/4 inches. I draw about 36 inches, 1842 is lighter pull than 1745, but I found little difference in speed.


----------



## August West (Jan 21, 2012)

I second Henry's findings, I actually found 1842s faster than 1745 with iirc .45 lead.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

I just reviewed my tests. I found 1842 slightly faster than 1745 with ammo up to .50 lead at 32 inch draw. In fact, at 32 inch draw, the spread between 2040, 1842, and 1745 was only .43 lb/ft and 1842 was on top. It wasn't until I stretched the bands to near maximum that the expected results showed up. At about a 39 inch draw, 1745, produced 15.2 lb/ft, 1842 produced 14.3, and 2040 produced 13.32 lb/ft. It seems clear that, to get maximum power from these tubes, you need heavy ammo and a lot of stretch.


----------



## reecemurg (Oct 9, 2011)

not got a chrony to test fps, but i either use tex heavy tubes and 11mm lead or dankung 1745/1842 and 11mm lead, everything thats had a hit to vitals has gone down, i'd be lying if i say everything i've shot has gone down, as would nearly every  but a head,neck or vital shot will down most catty game


----------

