Jump to content


Photo

Coyotes with air?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 09 August 2011 - 12:08 PM

I've been doing a lot of reading regarding taking coyotes with an air rifle. I've called coyotes for years and use a 22-250, so I'm aware of a coyotes will to live.I have a legal opportunity to call them, but I would have to use air, and it would have to be quiet.What I have found is there are big bore air rifles that might be ethical up to 100 yards? But they are not shrouded and wouldn't be quiet.Then I see an example like the Benjamin Marauder .25 that is shrouded. Might be ethical out to 50 yards?I have a custom .22 rifle that I would not choose to call coyotes with. I don't consider it an ethical choice.So the question is: Is there a quiet air rifle choice that is reasonable for called coyotes? I know it's been done, but so has .22lr.I think I know the answer is no, but I'd to hear it from you guys before I give up on the idea.Thanks

#2 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 09 August 2011 - 12:23 PM

R&L Airguns new modified Airforce Condor .308 sends a 136 grain Surefire slug at nearly 200 fpe and they sell a shroud for it that quiets it way down but it is a little louder than my shrouded .25 because it uses more air. It is more than adequate for coyotes and also adequate for small hogs, etc.Randy at R&L Airgun Supply can give you all of the info. There are different slug sizes, etc but last I heard the Surefires were the most accurate.My Marauder .25 is way too light for coyotes unless they are very close in my opinion. I shoot 62 grain Surefires from my shrouded .25 Condor with an R&L Extreme valve at 100 fpe and I consider it about the minimum for a coyote (out to 50 yards or so) but the .308 hits real hard.Velocities for .308 Condor 28" Lothar Walther barrel
  • 125 Grain fpe
  • 810.9 183
  • 797.6
  • 785.2
  • 767.1
  • 752.7 157
  • 136 Grain fpe
  • 785.9 187
  • 769
  • 761.3
  • 750.4
  • 732.2 162


#3 mtn dog

mtn dog

    Big Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camino, CA
  • Interests:Predator hunting.
    Other interests:
    My family, writing, photography, 2nd Amendment.
    Looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

Posted 09 August 2011 - 12:23 PM

Sounds like a situation for a bow hunter. :smiley-innocent-halo-yellow:

#4 Frank

Frank

    Big Kahuna

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Beach, Ca
  • Interests:Coyote Hunting #1, Valley Quail 2nd. Former (Idaho) mule deer hunter

Posted 09 August 2011 - 12:45 PM

What about a cross bow??

#5 Mr Del

Mr Del

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taft, Ca.

Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:01 PM

You already have the perfect weapon in the 22-250. Just shoot that where you can and have fun. Air gun.... yes. The FX revolution in .25 caliber and shooting distance of less than 40 yards. Open sights only. Three very quick first shots. Then hope he runs the other way if he runs at all.Murph.

#6 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:22 PM

Brant...Any choices that aren't single shot?Frank and mtn dog...Not going to go that directionMr. Del... .25? is that enough?I think I just read about an aftermarket shroud for the Sam Yang big bores, is that an option?If I do this, I think it would have to be semi auto. Heck, sometimes one bullet from a 22-250 isn't enough.

#7 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:28 PM

R&L Makes the shrouds for the .308 Condor. I own 3 of their shrouds and they work very well. Semi autos are pretty rare - especially in the big bore air guns.R&L Shrouds exploded...http://talonairgun.c...pic.php?t=19633

#8 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:23 PM

Brant, Just had a long conversation with Randy at R&L. Very apparent he knows his stuff. Thanks for pointing me in his direction.They are still dialing in the .308, and so he's a little hesitant to send one to me, being this would be my first airgun. He has a lot of faith in the .25 for coyote head shots.Maybe in a couple of months the .308 will be ready for a new guy like me. Seems like it would be worth the wait for almost double the fpe.How quickly can you reload the Condor in a hunting situation?Thanks

#9 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:37 PM

Randy is a real nice guy and is really talented with airguns. If your slugs are handy about 15 seconds to reload and knock the safety off. The guys are shooting coyotes with Daystate 80s and a .25 Condor with a 24" barrel (mine is 18") will do about 112 fpe with Randy's Extreme valve. Mine really rips through 10-12 lb ln opossums and heavier coons and I am trying to call in a coyote in my back yard to try it out on but I have no doubts that a well placed shot will take one out.Here is a link to the Surefire slugs posting. They make larger slugs is you want more energy. These are number from modded Condors. I m using the 6 ring with the 18" barrel but most guys like the 7 ring with the 24" barrel in the .25s.Barnes 6 ring, 57.6gr, 922.1 FPS, 108.8 FPE (22% higher than the Kodiak) (The new 6 ring are 62 grain and the 7 rings are now 70 grains)7 ring, 66.9gr, 893.5 FPS, 118.6 FPE 9 ring, 84.6gr, 816.8 FPS, 125.4 FPE Avg. (the highest measured was 822.8 FPS and 127.2 FPE at the standard set-up) A guy named Jerry sells these are they are pretty reasonable as cast slugs go.http://talonairgun.c...p...929&start=0As I mentioned Randy has different sized LDCs and will quiet these beasts down.

#10 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:43 PM

Brant, Just had a long conversation with Randy at R&L. Very apparent he knows his stuff. Thanks for pointing me in his direction.They are still dialing in the .308, and so he's a little hesitant to send one to me, being this would be my first airgun. He has a lot of faith in the .25 for coyote head shots.Maybe in a couple of months the .308 will be ready for a new guy like me. Seems like it would be worth the wait for almost double the fpe.How quickly can you reload the Condor in a hunting situation?Thanks

I have seen .22 cal Rapids take coyotes out to 50 yards with head shots but there putting out a lot of FPE for a .22 I think .25 cal or higher with more FPE would be better and I wouldn't try farther then 50 yards unless your using something like that .308 They make an airgun that can take almost any animal that is on land, I have seen a .458 Outlaw putting out 702fpe which would drop almost anything that is living.

#11 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:23 PM

Brant, I read some comlaints regarding cheekweld with the bottle location. What's your take?CBR, any specific rifle you care to recommend?

#12 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:55 PM

I think it's going to be hard to meet all of your requirements without spending a lot. The Rapids, Air Rangers and Air Force Talons are all very powerfull and can be fitted with shrouds and can be modded a lot. The Rapids, Ranger are multi shot 10-12 in .25 cal the Talon is singel shot, FX makes a .25 too I think it's a 10 shotBig bore909

#13 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 09 August 2011 - 06:02 PM

That is why I have the Maddog stock on my Stubby Extreme. With a straight Condor you MAY need the tri-rail base to be more comfortable ($30). Some folks put on an ETAC tank adapter that bends the tanks down but that is way over kill. Others put on a stock adapter called a WokButt some guy makes. I would try it b4 buying anything. The taller you are the more of an issue it is.http://www.rlairguns...Base-33-17.htmlhttp://www.kyhistori...e.com/etac.htmlhttp://www.rlairguns...me-749-131.htmlQuakenbush is here in Missouri and we are allowed to use big bore airguns for deer which is growing. It really works out great near the cities and burbs. He always has a waiting list for his guns. For deer and up sized game there are gettting to be some nice choices out there.http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/

#14 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:31 AM

CBR, I looked at the rifles you listed. Very impressive. You are right, I don't see myself spending that much for an air rifle.Brant, The condor sure would need a handfull of aftermarket changes to fit my needs. I have looked at Quakenbush, he's not taking orders right now.For now, I'll just keep reading and trying to learn. I can see I'm not just going to be able to buy an off the shelf rifle, sight it in and go calling.Thanks guys!

#15 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:52 AM

Did you look at the 2 links I put in my last post for you?

#16 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:23 AM

CBR, thanks, forgot to mention watching those two videos last night. I found a few of the rifles discontinued and the others have no shroud.I called Pyramyd Air and Sandra told me that aftermarket removable shrouds are illegal. She said that it's federal law?Those rifles you pointed me to that are above $1500. The quality seems apparent. One complete package from the manufacturer. Add an air tank (not planning on pumping), scope and misc. accessories and I would be way past what I'm willing to spend.

#17 Butcher45

Butcher45

    Squirrel Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:39 PM

Airguns just aren't cheap.....not one to go after coyotes anyways. Cheap and quiet is going to be tough. Cheapest option would probably be a HillPump for filling the air reservoir, and a SamYang 909 .45 or the new SamYang Recluse .357 or SamYang DragonClaw .50. A power tune drastically increases the performance of the SamYang 909.....I had great results last fur season shooting the .456 (unsized) 154grain EPP/UG slugs on coyote and bobcat. I like .45 for letting the air/blood out of em'. A tuned 909 is PLENTY for coyotes with a 2.5-3inch point blank range out to 50-60 yards easy.As for quiet, up here in Oregon you just pay $200 or so for a silencer tax stamp and you are good to go suppressing a SamYang 909, as they come with threaded muzzles (an adapter is likely needed for the Korean threads). The only way you can use a removable sound suppressor on an airgun legally in the states that I know of is with the "tax stamp".Crosman has released their .357 Rogue which is a repeater, shrouded, computer-controlled, and really long and heavy. It's about $1300. I have yet to hear from a single person anywhere that has bought one, even just to say that they bought one! Not sure what's up with that........Or you could save-up and go all-out on an XP Airguns .45Ranger. I think "the Fifty Eight" may be a bit excessive for coyotes lol!http://xp-airguns.com/1300I

#18 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 13 August 2011 - 09:37 AM

That 58 will stop anything....WOW820 grain @ 4500 psi - 755 fps = 1038 fpe.630 grain @ 4500 psi - 821 fps = 943 fpe433 grain @ 4000 psi - 922 fps = 817 fpe412 grain @ 4000 psi - 943 fps = 813 fpe

#19 Butcher45

Butcher45

    Squirrel Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 07:16 PM

Well....MOST anything. Anything in North America for sure.....original .45Colt velocities with twice the boolit weight (sectional density to spare), and much larger caliber!Not so sure about Rhino/Hippo. I can't recall if it was a Rhino or a Hippo, but I saw pictures of a broadheaded arrow shot from a very powerful bow that failed to make it past the hide.

#20 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 13 August 2011 - 08:43 PM

Since this keeps coming up....Actually the guy that won the appeal to make removable airgun silencers legal at the Federal level just got in trouble for something else but current precedent is that they are not firearms. I called our local BATF a couple of times - 1st on the Marauder since it is still removable and then on the R&L shroud. Both are designed for specific airguns. Now if one was adapted to a firearm then it has become a firearm according to the Feds. They may not be legal in your state.Crooker was charged in 2004 with illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, but the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals last year threw out a 2006 conviction on the charge. Crooker had sent a silencer for an air gun in the mail, but the federal Court of Appeals said the silencer was designed for an air gun, not a firearm, and did not fit the definition of a firearm. At the time of his arrest, Crooker believed that he was charged under a law that did not apply. http://www.masslive....es_15-year.html

As for quiet, up here in Oregon you just pay $200 or so for a silencer tax stamp and you are good to go suppressing a SamYang 909, as they come with threaded muzzles (an adapter is likely needed for the Korean threads). The only way you can use a removable sound suppressor on an airgun legally in the states that I know of is with the "tax stamp".

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1964 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL CROOKER, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge] Before Boudin, Gibson and Howard, Circuit Judges. Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Office, for appellant. Randall E. Kromm, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee. June 18, 2010 Per Curiam. Michael Crooker was indicted, tried and convicted for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2006), and sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment. The "firearm" was a device designed to muffle the sound of an airgun. The decisive issue on this appeal is whether such a silencer could, on the facts of this case, qualify as a "firearm" within the meaning of the statutory definition. Id. 921(a)(3), (24). The raw facts are essentially undisputed. In April 2004, Crooker--who had previously been convicted of a felony--was engaged in offering chemicals for sale, and a potential buyer in Wisconsin notified the Postal Inspection Service of a suspicious e-mail statement sent to the buyer by Crooker. The buyer had asked for a list of chemicals and inquired how they would be packaged. Crooker responded by stating: Most are repackaged. In fact, most come that way to me. Of course I combine shipping costs and I don't fart around with regulations either. I usually just send them Parcel Post (even things like nitric[] acid that I just sold). An investigation led authorities to inspect a package deposited by Crooker at a Massachusetts post office for interstate shipment on June 7, 2004. The package proved to contain a large caliber airgun and a cylinder made of black metal with a hole running through it, threading that allowed attachment to the muzzle of the airgun and baffles inside. Further inquiry revealed that the device had been made for Crooker by another individual. The government arranged a controlled delivery of the package to its recipient in Ohio, and that day Crooker was arrested and his apartment searched. The search revealed explosives and chemicals which resulted in a separate indictment of Crooker. Also seized were books and other materials evidencing Crooker's interest in firearms and airguns and a laptop containing relevant e-mail messages. A separate search of Crooker's brother's residence resulted in the seizure of a number of firearms and an article titled "Federal Law Definition of a Silencer" that bore a name (mgmike) used by Crooker. The article noted that it might be argued that an airgun silencer, if it could be "put to use on a powder burning firearm . . . might be a silencer" under federal law; the article argued that such a device would not be a silencer because not intended for firearm use even though it "could probably be adapted for use as a silencer on a powder burner." In pre-trial proceedings, Crooker sought to suppress the airgun and airgun silencer as products of an unlawful search, but the district court denied the several motions addressed to the searches. Although the lawfulness of the searches, as well as Crooker's request for suppression of letters he sent while in pre-trial detention, are extensively briefed on this appeal, we need not describe these issues in detail, or certain other claims made by Crooker as to the admission of evidence and the length of his sentence, because a more fundamental flaw exists in the government's case. At trial, the government offered evidence as to the seizure of the airgun device, evidence of Crooker's knowledge of firearms and technical skill, the above quoted article referring to the possibility of adaptation of the airgun silencer for use on a powder bearing firearm, and--of special interest--testimony of a government expert who had tested the cylindrical device seized from the package. There was other evidence of Crooker's interest in silencers and their lawfulness, but nothing that alters the thrust of the government's case. The government's expert testified that the seized device could be used to muffle the sound of an ordinary firearm in various ways, including the holding of the device against the barrel of the firearm with one's hand so that the bullet would pass through the device; but the witness admitted that this would be quite dangerous, and his own test was conducted only by threading an "adapter" onto both the barrel of an ordinary gun and the silencer to connect the two implements, because the silencer did not fit directly to the testing pistol. The adapter was described as one of a collection taken from the witness' office in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the Department of the Treasury. With the adapter, the sound of the weapon was significantly reduced. The witness suggested a makeshift adapter could be assembled from hardware store materials, but did not say he had ever tried it or seen it done. The government does not press on appeal any suggestion that the device could realistically be used to silence a firearm unless an adapter were used. The federal statute under which Crooker was charged defines "firearm" in pertinent part as a weapon that expels a projectile "by the action of an explosive," 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A), and this self-evidently does not include an air rifle such as that in Crooker's package which operates by compressed air. See ATF Rul. 2005-4 (paintball gun, which uses compressed air to expel a projectile, is not a "firearm" under the statute). But under the statute "firearm" includes "any firearm muffler or firearm silencer," 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defined as follows: The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Id. 921(a)(24). In the course of developing jury instructions and considering Crooker's motion for judgment of acquittal, the construction of this provision was a central issue; and the court ultimately rejected Crooker's argument that the statute included only a device "designed or intended to be used" with a firearm, concluding instead that the word "for" in the statute meant "capable of" silencing a firearm. In fact, the judge's instruction effectively ruled out Crooker's reading of the statute: You may consider evidence of intent in determining whether the government has proved knowledge. Keep in mind, however, that the government need not prove Mr. Crooker or anyone else actually ever used Exhibit 9 as a firearm silencer or ever intended it to be used as a firearm silencer. In the ordinary criminal case, the device charged as a silencer is one manufactured for use with a firearm and is easily connected (e.g., by threading one onto the other); and the possessor knows perfectly well the intended function of the device. E.g., United States v. Hall, 171 F.3d 1133, 1152 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1027 (2000). But where, as here, the device was created for a different use--to silence an airgun--and requires some modification or adaptation to fit a firearm, problems arise in two different dimensions: its capability for use as a silencer and, separately, the defendant's knowledge, purpose or both with respect to the device. If the statute said that a device "capable" of being used as a silencer was a firearm prohibited to a felon, there would be problems at least of degree in determining what "capable" meant as to a device usable only with an adapter; apparently, a potato or a soda bottle may, with varying efficacy and varying risk, be used to muffle a firearm shot. But taking the word "capable" in the abstract, a jury could rationally conclude from the evidence admitted at trial, including the government expert's testimony, that Crooker's device fitted with an adapter would be objectively capable of functioning as a silencer for a firearm. And, given Crooker's demonstrated expertise and also documents showing that he knew that airgun silencers could in some instances be so adapted, the jury could rationally infer that he knew that an adapter--little more than a properly constructed cylinder adjusted for size and with threading at each end--could be built that would allow this device to muffle or silence a firearm. We conclude, however, that the statute by its terms requires something more than a potential for adaptation and knowledge of it. The statute does not refer either to capability or adaptation; it speaks of a device "for" silencing or muffling. The ordinary connotation of the word is one of purpose. See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 747 (2d ed. unabr. 1987) (providing a first definition of "for" as "with the object or purpose of"). The government does not argue that the evidence proved that either Crooker or the maker of the airgun silencer intended that it be used to silence a firearm, but rather that "for" does not entail purpose but only knowledge of capability. To this end, the government contrasts "for" with two further portions of the silencer definition (quoted above) dealing with a combination of parts and with an individual part that could be used in fashioning a silencer. For these cases, respectively, the statute uses the phrases "intended for use" and "intended only for use," 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24), so the government says that the use of "for" must mean "capable" and that knowledge alone is enough. Still, it is as easy (perhaps easier) to view all three tests as gradations of purpose made more rigorous as the statute extends from a self-sufficient device to a collection of parts to a single part. But even if "for" were read as the government urges--which is perhaps possible as a matter of language (as in "a stone may serve for a hammer")--the airgun silencer in this case required a further "part" (the adapter), arguably making the case fall within one of the "parts" definitions that require intent. Worse still for the government, the use of a "capability" and "knowledge" definition--as applied to a home-made silencer--could also extend to a soda bottle or even a potato. The peculiar problem of silencers is that many objects, including relatively innocent ones, have some capacity to muffle the sound of a shot. The problem is illustrated by considering the government's own further argument that the silencer provision should be treated like the machine-gun provision, 26 U.S.C. 5845(:signs653wf: (2006). That provision was modified by the same Act that added the silencer provision, Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 ("FOPA"), Pub. L. No. 99-308, 101, 109(a), (:pirashoot:, 100 Stat. 449, 449-51, 460, and conviction for possessing a machine gun requires only knowledge of the gun's capability to operate automatically rather than any purpose for the gun to be used as an automatic weapon, Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994). But the machine-gun provision, by contrast to the silencer definition, explicitly adopts a test of objective capability: it covers any weapon "which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot" automatically multiple shots with a single trigger pull. 26 U.S.C. 5845(:cheers: (emphasis added). Nor is the difference in language difficult to explain: something is or is not an automatic weapon, but the range of physical objects that can muffle a firearm is so large and of so many alternative uses that some filtering restriction is needed to prevent overbreadth and possibly vagueness. Nor is the government much helped by legislative history references to the amendment which say that the machine-gun and silencer provision resemble one another, see H.R. Rep. 99-495, at 4 (1986) (declaring that an early version of FOPA "prohibited the transfer and possession of silencers . . . in the same manner as the section on machine guns"), because certain other clauses in the two provisions are phrased similarly--the clauses regarding parts of a machine-gun or silencer, 26 U.S.C. 5845(:drinks:; 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24); see H.R. Rep. 99-495, at 21, 28 (highlighting the Act's statutory amendments respecting parts of machine-guns and silencers). Turning to case law, several circuit cases support Crooker's position that intent or purpose is an element of the initial silencer definition under which Crooker was charged--as it plainly is for the parts definitions; these statements are explicit and helpful to Crooker but usually occur in cases where the courts found such a purpose sufficient even where the silencer was possibly inoperable. Yet at least one case involving a home-made device, United States v. Klebig, 600 F.3d 700, 703-04 (7th Cir. 2010) (alleged silencer was oil filter found taped to the barrel of a rifle), uses the language of intentionality. The government's case law is weaker still. It cites cases and legislative history suggesting that Congress in the silencer statute aimed at expansive coverage, e.g., United States v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms. Co., 504 U.S. 505, 515 (1992); but the proposition is too general to be useful. It also points to a plurality opinion in a Supreme Court decision, dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, Rogers v. United States, 522 U.S. 252 (1998) (plurality opinion); but Rogers' language does not remotely help the government, because the Court was concerned with a defendant's knowledge of a device that everyone assumed was purposely made as a firearm silencer. To read the statute literally, as we do, is conventional with criminal statutes in order to provide fair notice, United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997), and in this instance tempers problems of overbreadth and vagueness created by the multiple legitimate objects that can be used to silence a firearm. Conversely, the fact that a possessor does have a purpose to use, or to pass on the device to someone to use, as a silencer for a firearm increases the danger of such a use and makes it precisely the threat against which the statute means to guard. Of course, this literal construction poses no barrier to prosecuting anyone who knowingly possesses a commercial silencer. In such a case, it would be suitable to charge that the jury need only find that the defendant knowingly possessed a device designed to be used as silencer for firearm. The defendant's purpose becomes a pivotal issue only for a device not so designed, but that is the case before us; or at least the government's evidence and arguments leave it in that posture. As a practical matter, this leaves a loophole for other devices not so designed which we do not mean to minimize. Congress might well think that there are devices like airgun silencers that can be so readily adapted to use with conventional firearms that their possession by felons ought to be prohibited without regard to purpose. A conventional solution is to provide that the Attorney General can make regulations defining objectively the devices that pose enough of a danger to warrant banning. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 841(d), 921(a)(4)(:yahoo:, (17). The misinstruction in this case would justify a new trial, rather than acquittal, if the government had offered evidence that could allow the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Crooker had a purpose to have the device function as firearm silencer. But it had an incentive to develop such evidence --it would have been relevant evidence both of Crooker's knowledge and the device's capabilities (and the judge so instructed the jury)--and even on appeal the government does not claim that it could show illicit purpose. Thus, Crooker is entitled to an acquittal. United States v. Godin, 534 F.3d 51, 61 (1st Cir. 2008); see Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1977). Needless to say, Crooker is in the process of doing neither himself nor society any good. His attitude toward shipping chemicals shows an indifference to law, and (quite apart from silencers) even more disturbing is his professed interest as a convicted felon in airguns that could be as powerful as firearms. He deliberately skated close to the edge of the law and took his chances with a prosecution that the government was entitled to attempt. But, given the statute's wording, the answer is not to stretch the present statute beyond its language but to amend it--if the government is so minded--to deal more effectively with home-made or adaptable devices. The conviction is reversed and the case remanded for the entry of a judgment of acquittal. It is so ordered.

#21 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:05 PM

Brant thanks now my brain hurts....lol

#22 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:14 PM

Well with there just being one case I can see why the large retailers like AOA and Pyramyd want to steer clear of the whiole ordeal until more rulings come along. That said the BATF told me they know there are tens of thousands of airgun silencers out there and also that most states are legalizing firearm silencers as well. They actually said the power of the some the airguns coming out is starting to be of more concern than anything else. They went after Crooker because he was a bad boy and a convicted felon. Instead of getting him they have now made it possible for felons to own powerful silenced airguns legally. Oops.

#23 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:19 PM

But not everyone that is a felon is a violent dangerous person and non law abiding, some people have made mistakes when they were very young. Should they not be a loud to have any type of gun even an air gun? should they not be allowed to hunt or fish either?

#24 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:39 PM

I think they felt Crooker was still dangerous and he proved them right even though he won. Well airguns are outside of the BATF charter so they are out of luck on that one for now. Some states have some restrictions though like Michigan. My fear is that the BATF tries to set some energy limit, etc to grab more control and call anything with so much energy a firearm.

#25 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 15 August 2011 - 09:22 AM

Butcher, Thanks for the info. I've read about the Rogue. From the outside looking in, they may have jumped the gun. I'd have to give them time to get the apparent bugs worked out. I'm guessing that an air tank is the way to go. The hand pumping probably gets old quick when you are dialing in a new rifle. The XP looks awesome! But I have to have quiet.Brant, thanks for providing facts. Guys...I went the past few days thinking what I wanted was illegal. I found myself really disappointed that I wasn't going to have a quiet coyote capable air gun. Thanks to your info Brant, I'm going forward with this. I can see there is quite a future for airguns and there uses. Where I live I can legally shoot my 22-250. Not just a shot or two, but I can do my load development right out my door. I certainly don't need a quiet, coyote capable air rifle for here at home. But the opportunity that got me researching this has opened my mind to many other possibilities. The more I learn the more I realize this will cost a lot more than I had first thought. Just like powder burners, I realize that there isn't one right rifle for everyone. Am I on the right track? .25 cal is the bare minimum for coyotesBigger would be betterMin. 60 ft/lbs...some say min 100ft/lbs...others say 150+Min 800 fpsMagazine fed for follow up shots, also this is an un-hunted farm. I expect multiples.I'd be happy with out to 50 yards, like a shotgun.From talking to some shop owners, I get the impression there a a bunch of guys doing what I want to do. One shop is saying my solution is their Theoben MkII with shroud, tuned to shoot a 31 gr. with 60 ft/lbs @ 920 fps. Is this just the minimum specs?If I do this I don't want a marginal killer. But it has to be quiet. Ok, so I guess I'm in the $2k ballpark for a rifle and then the $600 ballpark for a CF tank.Anyone want to advise me on how to spend my money?

#26 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 15 August 2011 - 09:49 AM

I have a Theoben Rapid MKII in .22 shooting at 40fpe and it has no problem punching holes clean through squirrels and rabbits out to 100 yards or so but I wouldn't use it on a coyote unless it was 25 yards or less. I do have a Daystate Air Ranger in .25 shooting at 60fpe and I would go for a coyote out to maybe 50 yards if I had a perfect head shot. A Daystate Air Ranger 80 is a .25 shooting at 80fpe stock and should be able to be tuned higher. Air RangerFX also has a multi shot .25FX Royale 500

#27 RoFin

RoFin

    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino County, CA
  • Interests:Predator Calling...Off-roading...Exploring

Posted 15 August 2011 - 10:21 AM

CBR...Boy, that Daystate is one sexy rifle. A quick read leads me to believe for hunting size pellets it needs to be used as a single shot.The FX Royale 500, looks like it meets my requirements. I don't want to regret .25, TRYING to buy smart.I'm in So Cal. Is there a club or range where I could see air rifles in use?

#28 Brant

Brant

    StubExt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, PCP Airguns, Flying (home builts)

Posted 15 August 2011 - 11:51 AM

The minimum for a coyote is somewhat related to how good your shot is, etc. Crosman's capability chart claims 25 yards or less on a coyote for the Marauder .25 and it is only about 44 fpe at the muzzle. I am told their chart is somewhat conservative (and I also spotted some errors on the chart) but it is one guideline.http://www.crosman.c...ities_Chart.pdf

#29 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 15 August 2011 - 01:12 PM

RoFin my Air Ranger is 60fpe and I use a 10 shot clip with no problem and I'm sure the Air Ranger 80 also has the same 10 shot clip. The FX is around 45fpe so less power but I'm sure it coudl be tuned higher FPE. The M-Rod stock is even lower FPE but cost less and can be tuned for more power and you can make any gun wisper quiet with a custom shroud.Here is a link to some PCP guns with specs.PCP guns

#30 CBR400RR

CBR400RR

    Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Cajon, CA
  • Interests:Motorcycle racing, airguns, my family, hunting.

Posted 15 August 2011 - 01:16 PM

Brant that chart is so small it's very hard to read, can it be made bigger?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users