SpudFiles

it is against rules to talk about killing something living with a spud gun. people and large animals, i can understand. but there is always the "unintentional" possibility of death to any living being with the use of a spud gun on planet earth.

a couple of years ago, a MLB pitcher killed a seagull with a pitch of a baseball in a regulation game. he didn't intend to do it, it flew between him and home plate on a pitch. his target was the catcher's mitt, and he was focused on that.

we, as spud gunners, have the same potential. unless we fire at a known target, in a restricted area, there is a potential for the death of some living creature.

what i think is insane, is the people who "shoot for distance". this is the most irresponsible behavior i have ever heard of. some brag about shooting a golf ball 500-1000 yards. to do this, you must not "aim" at a target, just point the barrel up a bit and shoot. the MLB pitcher was throwing a baseball to a target 60.5 feet away.

the most common comment from spud gunners (here) is "how far will it shoot?" most videos i see from spud gunners are just firing off to no specified target (yahoo!!!!) some fire theirs off down the street, others, off into the woods.

shooting for "distance" is the height of irresponsibility in spud gunning. no human can see 500+ yards away to see if he/she will hit an animal or human, especially with golf ball projectiles, which is illegal for all "spud guns" by the BATFE definition of spud guns.

i was recently "chided" for a proposed "projectile", i stand corrected, who reads "all" the rules before clicking "agree" to anything on the internet? our eyes usually glaze over after screen 2...

so far, i have done all my shooting at 10-20 yards, at targets, in a well defined area, far from humans or domesticated animals. i have no intention to see "how far i can go?" with my spud gun. i like to shoot at targets and do damage on inanimate objects. i control my field of fire as much as possible (go off to the middle of nowhere, make sure the area is clear, and define a reasonable target)

i think bragging of shooting for "distance" should be banned from this site, for it promotes irresponsible behavior, with the possible consequences of loss of life a few hundred yards away where the shooter can't "see".

I think that there are a few good points in that statement, but I don't think that talking about shooting for distance should be banned from the site. It is irresponsible to shoot at something you can't even see, but there is also a responsible way to go about shooting for distance. I have a place where I can shoot over half of a mile without even being close to hitting anything living, and I can see well past 500 yards, which is farther than any of my current cannons are capable of shooting.

As long as the shooter is careful and can see where they are shooting, I see no problem with it.

I shoot for distance, because my range is quite large, and I can see where the projectile will go.

Rarely, I shoot for distance. And when I do it's on a closed golfcourse (from rain or repair) with at least 500yards to play with, my cannon will only shoot about 420-450.

no human can see 500+ yards away to see if he/she will hit an animal or human

Well I can easily see anything bigger then a small dog 450yards on a golf course...

BTW you wont find many people who can shoot a GB over 600yards.

I was recently "chided" for a proposed "projectile", i stand corrected, who reads "all" the rules before clicking "agree" to anything on the internet? our eyes usually glaze over after screen 2...

So as long as you are new and have ignorance of the rules, it's okay?
It's up to you to read all the rules, because you are too lazy, doesn't mean you can get away with it.


I hardly see members on Spudfiles shooting for distance in populated areas anyway. Sure, there could be a 1,000,000 chance that the ball lands on a lizard, possum, bird etc. But that's just life, it happens.


By your reasoning, golfers are the most irresponsible people on the planet. Longest drive ever was 515 yards, so according to you he could not have possibly seen humans or animals beyond the 500yards mark. With your reasoning he is very irresponsible and could've killed someone or something.

And doesn't a golfball fired from a cannon land with a similar force and velocity to that of one hit by a golf club?

mrbadexample wrote:no human can see 500+ yards away to see if he/she will hit an animal or human

Utter bollocks. On flat open ground, it's possible (for me at least, although bearing in mind my vision is above the human norm) to see a person a mile off, perhaps more.

Let us say we shoot across an open field. We can see further than the likely range of our cannons, we can see the area appears to be clear, and thus we know that the chance of hitting any animal (save perhaps very small things, like mice or rats) is absolutely minimal.
Now, even if there were a person out there, the chance of hitting them is exceptionally small.

The chance of a fatality from a distance shot is many many times less likely than the chance that you will hit a pedestrian on your next car journey. Should I chastise you for being irresponsible for driving a car? (Of course, assuming you drive)

Besides, you have missed the point. The rule forbids shooting animals or humans intentionally - and we do spend hours telling people to act safe and minimise the risks.
But I'd hardly blame some if after taking every possible precaution, some mishap were to happen.

For example, I know there have been some near misses with my air rifle when suicidal birds have decided to land in the middle of my target range (read: garden) while I was practising. Like your baseball pitcher, I could hardly be held responsible if by chance their landing coincided with the moment I squeezed the trigger.
Wouldn't necessarily make me feel any better about it, but I wouldn't have done it deliberately.

@MrC: Indeed, with terminal velocity, a driven golf ball will land with the same energy of a fired one (assuming of course the launcher was fired at an angle, and not reasonably flat)

I wouldn't promote a distance shot with a dart or something, because those could travel miles, and still be dangerous when they came down again - but a spud or golf ball has a ballistic coefficient poor enough that it is relatively slow by the time it lands, regardless of it's initial velocity.

I agree, you should always fire when there is no human or animal at least at an 180 degres zone around you.
When i shoot with my friends, i always tell them to stand behind me because then one time, i was shooting in my backard,i loaded my spudgun with a to much light potato, shooted and the potato maked a 90degrees sharp turn and hit the fence of my neighbor, wich was on his balcony

So now, i only shoot in a big river near my home(the Saint-Laurent at Montreal)

but i doubt a potato could kill a man, not enough strong.

Demon wrote:I agree, you should always fire when there is no human or animal at least at an 180 degres zone around you.
When i shoot with my friends, i always tell them to stand behind me because then one time, i was shooting in my backard,i loaded my spudgun with a to much light potato, shooted and the potato maked a 90degrees sharp turn and hit the fence of my neighbor, wich was on his balcony

So now, i only shoot in a big river near my home(the Saint-Laurent at Montreal)

but i doubt a potato could kill a man, not enough strong.

I am sorry, but this is just dead wrong. However, I do agree that distance shooting, when done carefully and under proper conditions, is not a dangerous, reckless action.

Ragnarok wrote:

mrbadexample wrote:no human can see 500+ yards away to see if he/she will hit an animal or human

Utter bollocks. On flat open ground, it's possible (for me at least, although bearing in mind my vision is above the human norm) to see a person a mile off, perhaps more.

my vision is 20/16, i see better than most humans, can you see a a toddler crawling in the grass at 500 yards?

and golf, as far as i'm concerned is the biggest waste of time and real estate, outside of graveyards.

do you know of a spud gun with accuracy of less than 1 MOA? you may intend to hit something 500 yards away, but YOU WON'T!

there are very few rifles capable of 1 MOA accuracy.

Rag, i've been a "shooter" for 30 years, a "lifer" in the NRA 15 years. i didn't fall off the turnip wagon yesterday.

I dunno, I'd say the fact that there haven't been any accidents reported to date is a good indicator that it ain't so dangerous. You can make up all the hypothetical situations you want, but the statistical evidence just isn't there.

If you can find a new story of someone who managed to hit someone else accidentally while shooting for range, then by all means, post it.

Demon wrote: but i doubt a potato could kill a man, not enough strong.

my first spud gun generates 1400 lb/ft of energy with a potato, a head shot would cause massive trauma and death, a body shot would break a few bones, adding a little "extra" to the potato would cause more "damage".

Demon, you don't want to "catch" one of my potatoes...

do you know of a spud gun with accuracy of less than 1 MOA? you may intend to hit something 500 yards away, but YOU WON'T!

When distance shooting you don't intend to hit anything. You intend to land the projectile in a certain area.

According to you, If I aimed at that *something* crawling in the grass at 500yards, there's not a chance in hell i'd hit it with a spudgun. So that's good, isn't it?

/sarcasm

Hitting someone or something on a field when distance shooting is purely down to chance. Most people here i'd imagine wouldn't fire in populated areas and would account for people walking on their 'range', so they'd make sure it was clear.

Seeing as people can't 'fly' into your shooting range like a bird could in a few seconds, one would assume that hitting a person is out of the question, and accidentally hitting an animal (aside from a domestic pet, which you should look out for) is down to pure chance. It happens.

Birds fly into my window several times a year, they usually die. Am I held responsible? No. Do I feel guilty? A little bit, but i'm still not removing my window.

Same thing with a distance shot. The chance of hitting an animal is very, very slim. You have a higher chance of running them over.


As long as the spudder does the required checks, a human should never be hurt in a distance shot.

I don't care what you think of golf as a sport, I was using it as an example to contradict your statement.

my first spud gun generates 1400 lb/ft of energy with a potato

I thought someone calculated it...and it was far below that figure?

MrCrowley wrote:.

I was recently "chided" for a proposed "projectile", i stand corrected, who reads "all" the rules before clicking "agree" to anything on the internet? our eyes usually glaze over after screen 2...

So as long as you are new and have ignorance of the rules, it's okay?
It's up to you to read all the rules, because you are too lazy, doesn't mean you can get away with it.

in the last week i've seen a few others who haven't read the rules, and even a few more who have yet to have been reprimanded.

i have read what you sent me, now i'm being a "good boy". it is YOUR RULES that i am speaking of here with this post...

keep your rules to a "post card" and most may read them, make the rules like the IRS filing guidelines and nobody will read them and fewer will understand them. (even IRS agents don't know the rules they enforce)

No, it's SPUDFILES rules you are speaking of. Moderators don't just make up their own rules. Have a look at The Rules already.

I dunno, I'd say the fact that there haven't been any accidents reported to date is a good indicator that it ain't so dangerous.

well acctually it does not mean anything... it means that no one linked someone's death to any spudder

POLAND_SPUD wrote:

I dunno, I'd say the fact that there haven't been any accidents reported to date is a good indicator that it ain't so dangerous.

well acctually it does not mean anything... it means that no one linked someone's death to any spudder

No, it really does mean something. I have a hard time believing that people are getting killed by spudguns all the time, but the super-mastermind criminals using the spudguns contstantly elude the law