buying a GAMO air rifle

[to_live]

hey guys i have started an apprenticeship in carpentry, and as a present to myself i am going to buy myself an air rifle i have 3 in mind, the GAMO CFX http://www.gamo.com/?ID=53&ProductID=149 or the GAMO shadow http://www.gamo.com/?ID=53&ProductID=80 or the GAMO Viper Express http://www.gamo.com/?ID=53&ProductID=331 i really have no clue which one i want i will mainly use it for shooting rabbits and birds and ill try for fox's, i already have a .22 magnum stirling but this creates to much noise and the neighbors don't like it... so far i am leaning towards the GAM CFX, but i am really unsure! so tell me what you think!

[jon_89]

I got a gamo big cat from wal mart for like $180. It shoots 1000 fps and has a 3-9x40 scope on it. This gun is awesome. I would highly suggest this one. I would go with the cfx because of the .22 capabilities. But the viper would be cool for the shot shell.

[hi]

i have a gamo hunter sport. its .177. i got it for about $160 at the local sporting goods store. its a good gun, very accurate and works great. gamo in general makes good air guns. i will warn you though, its not much quieter than my .22lr. its not a pop, like my .22lr, but its still loud. you might want to get the CFX if you are looking for a quiet gun, but even then most of the noise comes from the spring, not the projectile.

what ever you get, it should work just fine. get it in .22 cal. if you want to hunt. i wouldn't recommend shooting a fox with it, thats kinda pushing the limits of a pellet gun.

[jon_89]

Yeah so far my gamo has had no problems. Before this I had a beeman that was nice but it stopped locking when you cocked it. Yeah I think hunting for a fox with a .177 is really pushing but then you could use it for smaller game like birds and rabbit.

[MaxuS the 2nd]

I had the .22 version of the Gamo CFX, it was a great gun and lasted many thousands of shots before i sold it.

I'd advise against it though, attempting to load it whilst running after something is an utter bitch. So many times have I tried to put a bullet in and it's ended up getting either squashed or jammed in the breech.

Basically, lovely gun, but the breech loading system really lets it down.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Might be beyond your budget but if I were you I'd consider a quality rifle like a Diana, Weihrauch or Air Arms before settling on a Gamo.

[Jared Haehnel]

I bought an GAMO shadow and have a 3-9x by40 scope on it. I never got good with the iron sights. I tried for a good while too...I don't think they are very good...however with a scope its a decent rifle and I can shoot pretty near 3"in groups at 100 yards....not a sniper rifle by a long shot but good enough for plinking. Its .177cal.

Good luck...

[mark.f]

I suggest you skip the Gamo's.

Probably going at odds with nearly everybody else on this forum, but the Shadow I got last year had the breech hinge machined so badly that the barrel canted off about 2-3 degrees to the right.

I kept the rifle as a practice tool for learning how to fire springers accurately. I'm limited to around ten meters because of the barrel, though.

I say get a better quality rifle or build your own from parts.

[hi]

I can shoot pretty 3"in groups at 100 yards

theres no way. im pretty sure you mean 100 feet.

[mark.f]

I dunno. I can nail a 2-liter at around 100 yards, (the opposite side of my field), and that's with a multi-stroke pneumatic in 0.22. I imagine with the right shooting technique, (especially with a springer), and a good enough rifle, you could hit 3" at 100 yards. Windless day, dry, warm... would be a perfect condition to test such a thing.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

I shot a one inch group at 80 yards with the Monsoon today in a fairly stiff breeze, that's considered to be bloody good shooting. A 3 inch group at 100 yards with a Gamo springer is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Not impossible, mind you, but it would have to be under exceptional circumstances.

[judgment_arms]

Have you ever shot a magnum springer? It takes a LOT of getting use to.

Why not get a Benjamin Sheridan model 392; it’ll be plenty of gun for rabbit and squirrel and, with good shot placement, fox.

If youhave to have a springer do not get the viper express shotgun, the dumb things only got a plinking range of ~10 yards and the shot shells are expensive.

What ever you get make sure it’s .22 if you plan on hunting, .177 just ain’t enough lead to put anything bigger the a squirrel or a crow down.

Remember:
It ain’t about how fast the lead is going; it’s about how much lead is going.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

What ever you get make sure it’s .22 if you plan on hunting, .177 just ain’t enough lead to put anything bigger the a squirrel or a crow down.

Remember:
It ain’t about how fast the lead is going; it’s about how much lead is going.

There is no doubt that a bigger projectile will make a wider wound channel and cause quicker blood loss, ultimately being more lethal, but there are a number of other considerations.

An 0.22" pellet is generally travelling slower than a 0.177" pellet from a similar rifle, and therefore penetrates less. You need a certain depth of penetration to reach the vital organs in the case of a chest shot, a small hole through the heart is more likely to be lethal than a big hole that stops short of it.

It's also a matter of shot placement - the faster 0.177" pellet flies flatter and is therefore easier to shoot accurately. Headshots are always the best option in terms of lethality, and a rabbit shot through the head with a 0.22" hole through its head isn't any more dead than one with a 0.177" hole.

For some further reading, this FBI report on Handgun wounding factors and effectiveness is of interest. It talks about handguns and the human target, but it can be scaled down to airgun hunting.

The report concludes as follows:

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

[Jack_Hogg]

I would choose the Shadow 1000, I have it too, and it rocks hard!
I've shot many birds with it, and it's extremely powerful, and acurate.

[judgment_arms]

An 0.22" pellet is generally travelling slower than a 0.177" pellet from a similar rifle, and therefore penetrates less. You need a certain depth of penetration to reach the vital organs in the case of a chest shot, a small hole through the heart is more likely to be lethal than a big hole that stops short of it.

True, a .22 pellet will not penetrate as far, and it’s also true that a .17 caliber hole in the heart would kill it quickly, but the chances of a hitting the heart at anything more than thirty yards is relatively small, it’s not a question of if you can hit the hart it’s if you can hit something you can’t see.
One is much more likely to get a kill if one puts as large of hole as possible in the chest area, a .22 hole in the lung will stop a rabbit quicker than a .177 plus the heavier .22 pellet will do more damage to the ribs.

It’s a widely excepted fact that if your going after game any bigger than a tree rat (squirrel) you need a .22

It's also a matter of shot placement - the faster 0.177" pellet flies flatter and is therefore easier to shoot accurately. Headshots are always the best option in terms of lethality, and a rabbit shot through the head with a 0.22" hole through its head isn't any more dead than one with a 0.177" hole.

The .177 pellet may have a flatter trajectory but any truly skilled marksman should have no problem compensating for the added drop of a .22 pellet.

Another thing is, when hunting squirrels it is better to put the round in the squirrel’s spine at the base of it’s head, some people like to eat the squirrel’s brain, it’s considered a “southern delicacy”.

Also there is a difference between a .177 and a .22 head shot: since there is less of the brain left after the impact of a .22 pellet the varmint rolls around less after it dies.

the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

Once again:
It ain’t about how fast the lead is going, it’s about how much lead is going.

I would choose the Shadow 1000, I have it too, and it rocks hard!
I've shot many birds with it, and it's extremely powerful, and acurate.

If I believed in overkill, this would be a prime example of it…

I’m not a fan of magnum springers, if you need that much power just get your self a good .22lr firearm, and if you can’t shoot a .22lr were you hunt, you have no business shooting a magnum springer there either.

I have a GAMO shadow 1000, I can’t stand the dumb thing, although I have hit a paintball with it at thirty yards, last time a shot it, no matter how I held it, it didn't pattern any tighter than 3 inches in diameter at thirty yards. No I’m not talking about the viper express, my shadow is just that inaccurate.

On the other hand the one my granddad has gets half inch groups at 30 yards…