HW95 .22 Recent Tune & Chrony Data- Need Input Please

[Harpoon1]

...........I did yank the seal, sand the bottom lip a tad, and put it back in........

Michael,

So, I take it you ended up just sticking with the SGS seal after all?

[nced]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back! 

[beachgunner]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back!

Ed, yes, the velocity variation is concerning because if one shot is at say 660 fps, then the next is at 590, I have a significant drop in the pellet POI, at least using a H&N FTT at 14.66 grs. I'd rather not jaw a squirrel when I am trying to do a head shot.

[beachgunner]

...........I did yank the seal, sand the bottom lip a tad, and put it back in........

Michael,

So, I take it you ended up just sticking with the SGS seal after all?

Yes, I stuck with the SGS seal, and was able to chuck in it a drill and use a fine file to take a bit off the parachute ring at the bottom. I did try putting the factory seal back in, but it had some damage to it and lead to pretty significant dieseling due to lube getting behind it.

I've been doing some pest control mixed in with some target shooting, and while I'm not too concerned about groups, I am concerned about ethical kills. I have been getting exactly that since I fit the seal a bit, so I am assuming that was my issue.

It's a learning curve for certain. Next time, I just won't shove whatever seal I get in the tube, and hope for the best. Now I know if it doesn't move freely to a certain extent, I'm probably not going to get the best performance.

[Harpoon1]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back!

Ed,

Respectfully, not all of us are interested in FT competition, where splitting hairs can make a difference, and flatter shooting guns can make up for errors in range estimation when being forced to shoot at longer ranges and outside of our comfort zone.

I think we'd both agree that neither caliber is inherently more accurate than the other! Agreed?

So, if my comfort zone shooting Squirrel size targets in the field is 35 yds. And the maximum point blank range of a 16 fpe HW98 .22 on a 1/2" radius kill zone is 35 yds. Why would I choose the .177?

I'll concede the .177 is cheaper to shoot, and even marginally flatter, at least at closer ranges. Having said that, the .22 is more efficient, it absorbs more energy from the same amount of energy stored in the gun, cocking force. It retains more energy downrange, better BC. Produces larger wound channels, delivers more shock. All things being equal, I personally prefer the less harsh shot cycle of the .22 more than the .177. And it's quieter to boot! I could go on but, you get the point. 

Sure I get it, you want to keep cost at a minimum, and have a crossover gun you can both compete and hunt with. Makes sense. For the rest of us who are just average shots, have no interest in FT competiton, and want a gun that is capable of humanely taking something larger than birds, rabbits and squirrels, the .22 is the answer. IMO! YMMV!

[Harpoon1]

...........I did yank the seal, sand the bottom lip a tad, and put it back in........

Michael,

So, I take it you ended up just sticking with the SGS seal after all?

Yes, I stuck with the SGS seal, and was able to chuck in it a drill and use a fine file to take a bit off the parachute ring at the bottom. I did try putting the factory seal back in, but it had some damage to it and lead to pretty significant dieseling due to lube getting behind it.

I've been doing some pest control mixed in with some target shooting, and while I'm not too concerned about groups, I am concerned about ethical kills. I have been getting exactly that since I fit the seal a bit, so I am assuming that was my issue.

It's a learning curve for certain. Next time, I just won't shove whatever seal I get in the tube, and hope for the best. Now I know if it doesn't move freely to a certain extent, I'm probably not going to get the best performance.

Gotch'ya!

I'd be curious to see your chrony numbers after things have had a chance to settle in, if/when, you get around to it.

[Mark 611]

HP1, I like ur thinking

[nced]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back!

Ed,

Respectfully, not all of us are interested in FT competition, where splitting hairs can make a difference, and flatter shooting guns can make up for errors in range estimation when being forced to shoot at longer ranges and outside of our comfort zone.

I think we'd both agree that neither caliber is inherently more accurate than the other! Agreed?

So, if my comfort zone shooting Squirrel size targets in the field is 35 yds. And the maximum point blank range of a 16 fpe HW98 .22 on a 1/2" radius kill zone is 35 yds. Why would I choose the .177?

I'll concede the .177 is cheaper to shoot, and even marginally flatter, at least at closer ranges. Having said that, the .22 is more efficient, it absorbs more energy from the same amount of energy stored in the gun, cocking force. It retains more energy downrange, better BC. Produces larger wound channels, delivers more shock. All things being equal, I personally prefer the less harsh shot cycle of the .22 more than the .177. And it's quieter to boot! I could go on but, you get the point. 

Sure I get it, you want to keep cost at a minimum, and have a crossover gun you can both compete and hunt with. Makes sense. For the rest of us who are just average shots, have no interest in FT competiton, and want a gun that is capable of humanely taking something larger than birds, rabbits and squirrels, the .22 is the answer. IMO! YMMV!

A few replies.........

"not all of us are interested in FT competition"
LOL......who mentioned field target? When I shot .20 & .22 cal from my R9 I found that my "hit to retrieve" ration was lower than when shooting .177 cal if the range was 35 yards or more. Out to 30 yards I didn't notice a "nickels difference" in effectiveness on tree squirrels with all three cals.

"where splitting hairs can make a difference"
LOL.....at 35 yards with .20 or .22 cal with a R9 zero'd at 30 yards I WAS splitting hairs when it came to precise range "guestimation"! A .20 or .22 cal pellet will drop an extra inch in only 5 yards with the loopy trajectory so the "range buestimation accuracy" needs to be within about a yard at 35 yards. Of course you could zero the gun at 35 yards but then the mid range rise at the apex of the pellet flight would require precise hold under to brain the squirrel. I personally prefer to only need learning holdover instead of both holdover and holdunder.
 
"I think we'd both agree that neither caliber is inherently more accurate than the other! Agreed?" 
Nope.....perhaps there are better offerings now but due to the available pellet selection "way back when" my .177 cal was more accurate than either the .20 or .22 cal, especially past my 30 yard zero where the loopy trajectory threw a wrench in mix because the distance needed to be "guestimated" more critically. With the .177 pellet and a 30 yard zero I could reliably brain a squirrel at 40 yards by aiming at the top of the head, however when I shot the .20/.22 cal pellet I limited my shots to my 30 yard zero plus maybe a COUPLE yards. Just didn't make sense for me to limit my shooting to "zero distance" using .20/.22 when I was pretty reliable at 40 yards with a .177 cal.
Here is a target I shot a few years ago when checking out the trajectory of my .177 R9 home tune from 10 yards to 50 yards shot while sitting on a bucket and resting the R9 on cross sticks the way I still hunted squirrels when living in West Virginia.......
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Notice that all hits from 11 yards to 35 yards were "minute of squirrel head" and even at 50 yards the group only dropped 1 1/2" from the zero poi. This target was 165 consecutive shots swaying on a bucket so a bit of shooter fatigue is evident with some groups. 

"And the maximum point blank range of a 16 fpe HW98 .22 on a 1/2" radius kill zone is 35 yds. Why would I choose the .177?"
Well....I used to do a rather stiff tune when I used a .20 cal barrel on my oring sealed R9 (17fpe with Beeman FTs pellet) and found that that tune level did pretty closely match the trajectory of a mild .177 dome tune level. Problem was that a 17fpe tune on a relatively light weight break barrel was very hold sensitive, had a very sharp shot cycle, and scopes really didn't hold together very long. I did have my .177 HW77k tuned to shoot CPLs at 930fps (about 15.5fpe) and it worked out pretty well because the extra weight of the fixed barrel tamed the shot cycle. I did take the HW77k on a few squirrel hunting trips in WV but it was simply too heavy for my taste after scoping to lug around the hills. I also felt that there was too much "arm waving" required to get off a quick second shot if needed. The reason I chose to revert back to .177 cal after shooting .20 for a year and the .22 for six months was simply because the .177 simply was more reliable for me when shooting squirrels!

"I'll concede the .177 is cheaper to shoot, and even marginally flatter, at least at closer ranges."
Really? I'll challenge you to shoot a similar target with your .22 cal HW power level springer from 10 yards to 50 yards using your favorite zero distance. LOL....I'm guessing that you'll be surprised at the difference. Basically my .177 trajectory with a 30 yard zero was 3/8" low at 10 yards, first zero was at 17 yards, midrange trajectory at 25 yards was 1/4" high, second (main) zero was at 30 yards, poi was 1" low at 45 yards and the poi at 50 yards was 1 1/2" low.

"less harsh shot cycle of the .22 more than the .177. And it's quieter to boot! I could go on but, you get the point"
Hummm, it was a long time ago when I tried the .22 pellet from my R9 but I don't recall such benefits over .177.

"capable of humanely taking something larger than birds, rabbits and squirrels"
LOL....like these (more than a couple taken) with my .177 R9 and a single dome pellet for each critter..........
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
What became of the squirrels taken that day.........
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com

My experience is that at HW95/77/97/98 power levels only penetration through the vitals is of any value and I found that a .177 dome at 900fps will penetrate deeper than a 750fps .22 cal dome. LOL...in my powder burner days I had more than a couple grey squirrels take 100+fpe hit through both lungs and still keep traveling long enough to get into a "tree hole" 10 feet away so I think that a .22 cal pellet at springer velocity would be more effective. IMHO (well, maybe not so humble) opinion only pellets through the vitals means anything at springer power levels so be it field target matches or ESPECIALLY when shooting living critters pin pount accuracy is paramount. I first started playing with "fat calibers" after reading a post that claimed a .20 cal Crow Magnum pellet with a minimum me 14 fpe would expand the killzone size 50% on a squirrel (say from 1" expanded to 1 1/2"). Well...to test the theory I tuned my R9 to shoot the .20 CMs at 17.5fpe and hunted with that setup for a solid week. LOL....at the end of the week my hit to retrieve ratio was a piddly 50% contrary with my normal 90% hit to retrieve using an accurate .177 dome.  The problem was that I actually believed the ".20 CM pellet hype" so my aiming wasn't as precise as it was when shooting the .177 plus the inherent poor accuracy of the CM pellet past 25 yards. LOL....the squirrels I did take with that pellet all contained a nicely mushroomed .20 CM pellet like this............
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com

In West Virginia I took two squirrels in a row from an old oak tree that was a lazer measured 70 yards using my .177 HW77k. Well, with that feat I was sure that I was descended from "Danl Boone" till I did this little paint ball test at 50 yards!!! Here is the ugly result...........
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Noting how far off some of the misses were I knew that had no excuse for shooting at living critters at 50 yards under field conditions sitting on a bucket resting the gun on cross sticks (my usual still hunting method)!

Anywhoo.....as long as you have sufficient accuracy and penetration with your .22 cal pellets at the distance you're shooting......all is certainly fine and dandy!

[Yogi]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back!

Ed,

Respectfully, not all of us are interested in FT competition, where splitting hairs can make a difference, and flatter shooting guns can make up for errors in range estimation when being forced to shoot at longer ranges and outside of our comfort zone.

I think we'd both agree that neither caliber is inherently more accurate than the other! Agreed?

So, if my comfort zone shooting Squirrel size targets in the field is 35 yds. And the maximum point blank range of a 16 fpe HW98 .22 on a 1/2" radius kill zone is 35 yds. Why would I choose the .177?

I'll concede the .177 is cheaper to shoot, and even marginally flatter, at least at closer ranges. Having said that, the .22 is more efficient, it absorbs more energy from the same amount of energy stored in the gun, cocking force. It retains more energy downrange, better BC. Produces larger wound channels, delivers more shock. All things being equal, I personally prefer the less harsh shot cycle of the .22 more than the .177. And it's quieter to boot! I could go on but, you get the point. 

Sure I get it, you want to keep cost at a minimum, and have a crossover gun you can both compete and hunt with. Makes sense. For the rest of us who are just average shots, have no interest in FT competiton, and want a gun that is capable of humanely taking something larger than birds, rabbits and squirrels, the .22 is the answer. IMO! YMMV!

Skimpy, You forgot the most important reason.  .22 pellets are SO much easier to load.   
Half the time, I load my .177 wadcutters backwards

-Yogi

[nced]

Yes, I neglected to mention that the chrony numbers are with H&N FTT's 5.53 head size, 14.66 gr.

I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however. I am not sure of the wire diameter of the standard Hornet spring, and I'm not sure he list it on the web page.

Since this is my first tune, I wasn't looking to run a tight seal or not. It was just the way it was untouched from ARH, so that is what I went with.

Hornet spring is listed as..........38 x .125" wire- ID- .543"

"I'm not too worried about velocity. The spread is unacceptable for hunting and pest control however."
Interesting because I would think the only "unacceptable for hunting" issue would be the accuracy, however I'm assuming that the velocity spread is leading to poor accuracy.

When I tried .20 and .22 barrels on my R9 years ago I found that the loopy trajectory past my 30 yard zero was unacceptable so I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels and reverted back to .177 never to look back!

Ed,

Respectfully, not all of us are interested in FT competition, where splitting hairs can make a difference, and flatter shooting guns can make up for errors in range estimation when being forced to shoot at longer ranges and outside of our comfort zone.

I think we'd both agree that neither caliber is inherently more accurate than the other! Agreed?

So, if my comfort zone shooting Squirrel size targets in the field is 35 yds. And the maximum point blank range of a 16 fpe HW98 .22 on a 1/2" radius kill zone is 35 yds. Why would I choose the .177?

I'll concede the .177 is cheaper to shoot, and even marginally flatter, at least at closer ranges. Having said that, the .22 is more efficient, it absorbs more energy from the same amount of energy stored in the gun, cocking force. It retains more energy downrange, better BC. Produces larger wound channels, delivers more shock. All things being equal, I personally prefer the less harsh shot cycle of the .22 more than the .177. And it's quieter to boot! I could go on but, you get the point. 

Sure I get it, you want to keep cost at a minimum, and have a crossover gun you can both compete and hunt with. Makes sense. For the rest of us who are just average shots, have no interest in FT competiton, and want a gun that is capable of humanely taking something larger than birds, rabbits and squirrels, the .22 is the answer. IMO! YMMV!

Skimpy, You forgot the most important reason.  .22 pellets are SO much easier to load.   
Half the time, I load my .177 wadcutters backwards

-Yogi

I've never had issues loading .177 DOMES backwards, even without looking at them when pushing into the leade.
Guess I never found wadcutters to be accurate from my .177 R9 past 25 yards so I don't use them.

[Harpoon1]

Ed

I think I've already highjacked Michaels thread enough. Maybe I'll start one later on this subject and we can continue this there!

Good luck to you.

[nced]

Ed

I think I've already highjacked Michaels thread enough. Maybe I'll start one later on this subject and we can continue this there!

Good luck to you.

Thanks, good "heads up", you're completely correct!

[beachgunner]

I finally managed to get the HW95 over the chrony today with the fit SGS ARH seal. I had a feeling it was shooting slow based on my POI relative to before my spring and seal replacement.

The highlights;
10-shot string, H&N FTT's, 5.55 head size
Ave. 627, Min 620, Max 638, Spread 18, Stdev. 7

So, I now have a 12.5-13.25 fpe rifle when I used to have a mid-14 fpe rifle. My Ave. was 665 fps before the tune with the factory spring and seal.

My problem is not the 30 fps that I have lost. It's the accuracy. My 10 shot group from 20 yards bench rested was .75". Not so good. Been much better. The power isn't the issue. I certainly realize that a well placed shot is the key. That being said, shooting a .22, I could use the extra 30 fps to flatten out the trajectory as much as possible.

Is the loss of velocity the reason for the loss of accuracy? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Do I open her up yet again, or do I just keep shooting it, hope the seal will wear and loosen up a bit more, and hope things improve?

[cosmic]

When things change maybe a different pellet might help.

[Smaug2]

I finally managed to get the HW95 over the chrony today with the fit SGS ARH seal. I had a feeling it was shooting slow based on my POI relative to before my spring and seal replacement.

The highlights;
10-shot string, H&N FTT's, 5.55 head size
Ave. 627, Min 620, Max 638, Spread 18, Stdev. 7

So, I now have a 12.5-13.25 fpe rifle when I used to have a mid-14 fpe rifle. My Ave. was 665 fps before the tune with the factory spring and seal.

My problem is not the 30 fps that I have lost. It's the accuracy. My 10 shot group from 20 yards bench rested was .75". Not so good. Been much better. The power isn't the issue. I certainly realize that a well placed shot is the key. That being said, shooting a .22, I could use the extra 30 fps to flatten out the trajectory as much as possible.

Is the loss of velocity the reason for the loss of accuracy? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Do I open her up yet again, or do I just keep shooting it, hope the seal will wear and loosen up a bit more, and hope things improve?

Michael: Has it got a least a few hundred rounds through it since the tune? If not, leave it be and just get a couple practice sessions, studying your trajectory and such. Velocity will slowly pick back up as she breaks in. As you say, the key is having enough power, and since you're partial to head shots anyway, 12-13 FPE is plenty. With a .22, pretty much any hit in the back part of the head is going to be lethal, due to the impact causing brain damage.

Also, is this with your tried-and-true FTTs, or with the Polymags or wadcutters? If it's the latter, you might be having an energy difference due to different pellet.

Ed: You make great points, but it sounds like you have at least 4x the experience shooting .177 vs. .20 or .22. Maybe you got spoiled by the flat trajectory, to the extent that you never fully became proficient with it? I was a die-hard .177 guy for awhile too, but I don't agree that a through and through shot is necessary. I want enough to punch through one side, and through the vitals, but I don't need an exit wound to be happy. I've found that shots on squirrels' upper chests from a .22 bleed a LOT more than from a .177, and that's just the blood I can see externally. The .177 holes just tend to self-heal, to a greater extent, whereas the .22 holes are big enough to stay open.

I too tried Crow Magnums, in .177 and .22, and as you say, even in the guns that will shoot them well enough inside 25 yards, they are not as accurate as domes. The real game-changer pellet for me was Baracuda Hunters. (not Extremes)   They fly like a dome, but hit like an HP. Shoot them through paper, and they cut much cleaner holes. I've found that a .177 Baracuda Hunter at 15-19 FPE hits like a .22 dome. External bleeding is not as profuse, but internal bleeding (where they've expanded) seems to be.

Temper all that ^ with the fact that most of my animals are taken at 15 yards though, where there's no trajectory concern. Once in a while, I'll take one at 35 yards, and with a springer, I'm with you. I like .177. Once you get into a 23+ FPE PCP, where there's no trajectory penalty for .22, there's no comparison. They hit hard, bleed well, are wind resistant....

But for your case, you're such a great shot with a .177 springer that you can put the lead right into the fusebox at 30+ yards, why bother with a bigger caliber/loopier trajectory? Bleeding doesn't matter, impact doesn't matter. Just pellet placement and enough penetration to get through one side of the skull. One-shot kills on racoons and rock chucks with a .177 dome is impressive. It comes down to having a well-tuned springer and knowing it well enough to hit the off switch. (whether it's a field target or one with a heartbeat)

[beachgunner]

Jeremy,

I've probably got 200 rounds through the rifle since the seal was sized. I'm using FTT's 5.54 or 5.55's. The rifle really likes them and they serve me well for pesting. It also does great with JSB 15.89's, but I have not tried them since the tune.

My bench shooting was off a table with bags front and rear. I've definitely done better than 3/4" routinely with that setup.

My inclination is too leave well enough alone for now, and if I start to have accuracy issues, go back in, take some more material off the rear parachute and add a tad more lube to the compression tube and seal lip.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

[nced]

"you have at least 4x the experience shooting .177 vs. .20 or .22."
LOL....more like 25x with the .177 since I only shot the .20 for a full year and the .22 for 6 months before I gave up on them and sold both the .20 & .22 barrel over a decade ago!

"Maybe you got spoiled by the flat trajectory, to the extent that you never fully became proficient with it?"
Some truth in this comment because out to 30 yards it didn't matter what caliber I shot for squirrels as long as the pellet was accurate. The thing I never became "fully proficient" with was guessing the proper holdover to brain a squirrel past 30 yards with the loopy flying fat pellets. LOL....I could reliably brain a squirrel at 40 yards with a .177 CPL zero'd at 30 yards by aiming between the eye and ear at the top of the head. With the .20/.22 I learned to keep my shooting distance within a couple yards of my zero distance so it really didn't make any sense to limit my shooting to 30ish yards when 40ish yards was reliable with a .177 CPL.

"The .177 holes just tend to self-heal",
LOL....not when I get two holes with one shot after going through the vitals, one hole in and one hole out! LOL Here are a couple squirrels taken with a hard lead .177 CPL. Both were "through shots" and neither moved more than three feet from where they hit the ground..........

What happened to the squirrels taken that day.........

Here is one that was carrying it's last supper when shot..........

Seems that these critters (more than a couple of each taken with a .177 dome) also didn't "self heal" with a .177 dome even though the pellet only penetrated "one side" and the vitals. The groundhog had it's spine severed at the base of the skull and the raccoon had it's brain scrambles a bit after the CPL penetrated the back of the head as it was climbing the oak tree my bird feeder was hanging on........


Actually, at the piddly fpe at impact from a R9 I found that only penetration through the vitals meant anything regardless if it were .177, .20 or .22. LOL....in my rimfire days I've had more than a few squirrels take a 100+fpe hit through the ribs and still travel quite a few feet so I don't think that sub 15fpe at impact from a .22 cal airgun pellet would work any better!

Anywhoo.....after 18 months of shooting .20 & .22 pellets from my R9 I would have stayed with them IF  my "hit to retrieve ratio" was better than when shooting the .177 dome....but it actually was poorer with the .20/.22 due to more "off the mark hits"! I learned that a fringe hit with a .22 from a R9 wasn't as good as a "center hit" with a deep penetrating .177 cal dome.

"Once you get into a 23+ FPE PCP, where there's no trajectory penalty"
Agree 100%! For the PCPs (and even the piston super magnums like the Beeman Kodiac) the larger pills are the best choice because you get both sufficiently flat trajectory, caliber & penetration! There may be an issue with accuracy from a piston super magnum but I found that the .25 cal Kodiac I shot was accurate enough at 30fpe with Diana Domes when I shot it at 30 yards, however that monstrosity was simply too honkin large and heavy for my taste!