0.177 vs 0.22 pellets, if the same weight and shape

[grand-galop]

The same debate goes on in the powder burner community with the 300 win mag and the 6.5 creedmore.. On the SNIPERFORUM you can follow the open discussion and GOOD ARGUEMENTS are discussed in both camps..

[anti-squirrel]

Yes, in anti-squirrel's tests, the velocities were close, although he didn't state if the barrels were the same length in both calibers.... A common .177 cal conversion on the 2240 (which has a 7.5" barrel) is to use the 10.1" barrel from a 1377.... My personal experience, using the same barrel length in different calibers, shows a much larger difference in FPE in favour of the larger caliber, when all other factors are kept the same....

The very title of this thread is problematic.... If a .177 and a .22 cal pellet are the same weight, they will NOT be the same shape....

Bob

Hit the nail square on the head.  I used a stock .22 barrel and 10.1" .177 barrel off my 1377, so I was already doing exactly what we DON'T want- putting things in favor of the .177.  Then using a .22 Gamo Redfire, which is a hollow-point with a polymer tip and comparing it the ballistically superior Sniper Mag with a rounded nose that also weighed a teensy bit less... and the .22 despite all the shortcomings still came out on top.  I figured the .177 would come out on top and I was wrong.

The test with the 13-grainers was similar... even though I was skewing things with an advantage toward .177, the .22 still outperformed.  This is when I dusted off my books and started doing math.  And the math validated the results.

Summary: I enjoy my .177 guns a lot, but with all other things equal or slightly skewed in favor of .177, the .22 still came out on top.  And this is why everybody should build these Lego guns.  They validate all the mathematics we tried to forget after graduation.   
 
My personal choice: For a given platform, I try to go with the heavier pellets in PCP/CO2/Pumpers.  When I eventually have more play money, this is why I want to scrounge up a .20 barrel for building a 2040, as well as- at some point- build a 2540 ie: .25 barrel.

[anti-squirrel]

I dont want you to be OFFENDED by what I am about to say..  The surge in big bore popularity is related to the opportunity to hunt bigger game that was intended for powder burners until recently.. I think the cost in the bigbore be slightly  less than 5 years ago is a big part of the surge too... I dont think it is negative to ask question about efficiency in the small bore domain because if you can have the same KILLING POWER in a .177 in longer range then a .22 , it is advantageous to hunt with the .177 in the capacity to use the air more efficiently..  LESS REFILL= MORE HUNTING..  I dont want to hunt rabbits with a 100FPE gun..

Ah, but here's the thing.  A super-high-velocity .177 tends to be less accurate at longer range because the pellets are longer and thus have a greater likelihood of dynamic instability, where .22 are shorter (for a given weight) thus suffer less likelihood. 

I am ALL FOR reducing power in a .22 airgun versus cranking a .177 up to volume 11.   This is a matter of picking the right tool for the right job.  Powderburners- due to the inherently faster (supersonic) projectiles, do not have to deal with the nutating action/dynamic instability at typical airgun pesting ranges (random number of say 120 meters).  And although there are plenty of hunters/pesters that can shoot longer ranges with .177, there's a very real reason why bore size has steadily increased in longer range competition.  To carry the same energy of a .22, the pellet has to either be longer (to be the same weight) or move faster, and once you start creeping into the transonic territory, things happen that affect accuracy. 

One thing I forgot to mention was my shot-count in my tests.  43 shots in .22, 41 in .177.  Efficiency goes to .22.  Dunno what outside factors there were, but that's what happened.

I won't talk about accuracy, since my tests concern shorter-range (under 40 yards).

And what it all really boils down to is you don't get to pick the pellet: your barrel does.  And if it likes Eun Jin 16 grain .177 domes, go for it.  None of my .177s do, so I go for the next best thing: H&N Sniper Magnums at 15.1 grains.  But those trajectories are loopier than a 15-grain Gamo poly-tipped hollowpoint in .22

[rsterne]

Barrel volumes in anti-squirrels tests.... .177 cal with 10.1" barrel = 4.07 cc.... .22 cal with 7.5" barrel = 4.67 cc.... This produced a slight edge for the .22 cal.... If the .22 cal had the same 10.1" barrel length as the .177 cal, the volume would have been 6.29 cc.... and the performance would have far exceeded what the .177 did.... The shot count should have remained the same, but the FPE could have increased by as much as a third, because it is well known that the 2240 with stock 7.5" barrel wastes a LOT of CO2.... How would the efficiencies have compared then, with equal length barrels?.... Not much doubt in my mind....

Bob

[Wolverineshooter]

Barrel volumes in anti-squirrels tests.... .177 cal with 10.1" barrel = 4.07 cc.... .22 cal with 7.5" barrel = 4.67 cc.... This produced a slight edge for the .22 cal.... If the .22 cal had the same 10.1" barrel length as the .177 cal, the volume would have been 6.29 cc.... and the performance would have far exceeded what the .177 did.... The shot count should have remained the same, but the FPE could have increased by as much as a third, because it is well known that the 2240 with stock 7.5" barrel wastes a LOT of CO2.... How would the efficiencies have compared then, with equal length barrels?.... Not much doubt in my mind....

Bob

Definitely barrel length is a big factor here, not so much about the shape of the pellets because the travel is so short within the barrel to make a difference. In the article I cited, the hypothetical example the author calculated, the efficiency of 0.177 is 15% vs 0.22 at 23%, it is a 50% increase in power. Although I think the author is talking about optimal power so 0.22 will have a longer barrel, but nevertheless 0.22 should have more muzzle energy.

Still BC will have a big impact for the life after barrel at the longer distance. I assume typical hunting would be short distance so 0.22 will have advantage over 0.177 in terms of efficiency.

[Ribbonstone]

No reason you can't so the same (at least with PCP's, where are adjustable enough to get the output pretty close in speed).  Rather than just using calculatores (which aren't really bad), suggest you actually get out and shoot them BOTH at range and a a good selection of test media (from really soft stuff to really thick/hard stuff).


NORMALLY, I'd prefer an airgun suinted to the power level needed for what I'm hunting and the ranges I expect to shoot.


BUT some times a new toy just has get some real world shooting in, even if it's pretty inapporpriate foe the game at ahnd.  Really do not need a +50 foot pound .25 to nail a few pest birds, but getting some trigger time on the new toy seems more important.

An aside:
 (PB related).  Hunted two years with a buddy "Boo" (Yeah...nick-names are kind of a southern thing).  Rabbits, squirrels, pigs, nutria, deer.  He used a .375H&H for all of that.  WHY?...becasue he had moose trip booked and paid for the next season and he wanted to get use to the recoil (which I do admit, is easier to deal with away from the bench and with your consentration on hunting.)

(Then again, he'd also run around the track or up  statium stairs, with a 50 pound back pack for the same reason.  Never saw such a dedicated hunter.)

[ackuric]

Given all factors are at least IDEAL. I disagree with keeping pellet weights the same when comparing two different bore sizes as that is VERY unfair...

.177 @ 18 fpe (10.3 gr jsb heavy) going 900 FPS will drop 13.94 inches @ 100y  (2" scope height)
-Energy retained @ 100y= 9.6 FPE (51.81%)

.22 cal @ 32 FPE (18 gr jsb heavy) going 900 fps will drop 13.56 inches @ 100y (2" scope height)
-Energy retained @ 100y = 17.39 FPE (53.71%)

.25 cal @ 61 FPE (34 gr jsb heavy) going 900 fps will drop 12.31 inches @ 100y  (2" scope height)
-Energy retained @ 100y = 37.07 FPE (60.63%)

If sectional density and ballistic co efficiency are tied together...then ultimately a pellet of the same weight will potentially do better the smaller the bore...

-Matt

[anti-squirrel]

Barrel volumes in anti-squirrels tests.... .177 cal with 10.1" barrel = 4.07 cc.... .22 cal with 7.5" barrel = 4.67 cc.... This produced a slight edge for the .22 cal.... If the .22 cal had the same 10.1" barrel length as the .177 cal, the volume would have been 6.29 cc.... and the performance would have far exceeded what the .177 did.... The shot count should have remained the same, but the FPE could have increased by as much as a third, because it is well known that the 2240 with stock 7.5" barrel wastes a LOT of CO2.... How would the efficiencies have compared then, with equal length barrels?.... Not much doubt in my mind....

Bob

Definitely barrel length is a big factor here, not so much about the shape of the pellets because the travel is so short within the barrel to make a difference. In the article I cited, the hypothetical example the author calculated, the efficiency of 0.177 is 15% vs 0.22 at 23%, it is a 50% increase in power. Although I think the author is talking about optimal power so 0.22 will have a longer barrel, but nevertheless 0.22 should have more muzzle energy.

Still BC will have a big impact for the life after barrel at the longer distance. I assume typical hunting would be short distance so 0.22 will have advantage over 0.177 in terms of efficiency.

Here's where typical hunting becomes a point for discussion.  I have no problem taking small game up to 30 yards with my .177 PP700 pistol.  If it were a .22 I'd leave it the same depending or open it up a little to 35 or 40 as long as I can get the same accuracy.  But my PR900 rifle- a .22- I feel confident in taking small to medium quarry in excess of 50 yards.  I haven't found what it likes the most pellet-wise, but I'm sure that as per most SPA guns, it will prefer heavier pellets... Which suits me fine.  Ad we have many folks here dropping quarry in excess of 80 yards.  In powderburner terms, that's short distance.  In airguns, that's a good ways off.

Bottom line is the energy should match the quarry.  UK hunters take squirrel at 40, 50 and further yards with 12 FPE springers and PCPs.  Why?  It's all about precision.  So in the end, being able to put a pellet where it inflict fatal harm to quarry is the intended desire, not putting a certain energy level at a certain distance.  Case in point: I seen gut-shot squirrels hit with .22LR run up a tree and make it off and outta sight.  And yet my 9 1/2 FPE Slavia 634 springer has taken multiple squirrel with absolutely precise headshots.  Energy level is not as important as precision.  So whatever gives the best accuracy is what I generally choose when it comes to pellets RE: weight/size etc.

[Wolverineshooter]

Well precision and energy are both important but of course if no precision then power is irrelevant. I wonder why UK shoots far with 12fpe, is it because their pellets have better BC? I would assume people here are just as accurate as Europeans, right?

[Habanero69er]

Not better BC, just more hold over.

[Ribbonstone]

Why stop at 25?

If looking for the IDEAL...why not include larger bores...they can make it to 900fps too...and show the same progressive advantage.

(And when has this been news...sometime in the late 1600's...big projectiles pushed full-outdo better than little projectiles when pushed by the same pressure (or did match-lock shooter's get it wrong?)

[triggertreat]

Well precision and energy are both important but of course if no precision then power is irrelevant. I wonder why UK shoots far with 12fpe, is it because their pellets have better BC? I would assume people here are just as accurate as Europeans, right?

Not really true about power being irrelevant.   The more power you have, the less accurate you can be.  With .177 I would agree, but .25 and above terminal shock plays a roll.

[Ribbonstone]

Good that you admit that..."The more power you have, the less accurate you can be."...but I haven't found that quite the story. A .177/20/22/or 25 hole though the brain or heart on typical/tradtional airgun sized critters (squirrels to rabbits) seems to work just as well for me...might be that a larger pellet delivers more energy per inch of "meat travel", but if it doesn't smack the "off switch", it's kind of a moot point.

[Ribbonstone]

Good that you admit that..."The more power you have, the less accurate you can be."...but I haven't found that quite the story. A .177/20/22/or 25 hole though the brain or heart on typical/tradtional airgun sized critters (squirrels to rabbits) seems to work just as well for me YThey either puff up or hump up, fall sideways)...might be that a larger pellet delivers more energy per inch of "meat travel", but if it doesn't smack the "off switch", it's kind of a moot point for DRN (dead right now)....might die a a couple of yards closer to the impact point, but still take a scramble.

[triggertreat]

Good that you admit that..."The more power you have, the less accurate you can be."...but I haven't found that quite the story. A .177/20/22/or 25 hole though the brain or heart on typical/tradtional airgun sized critters (squirrels to rabbits) seems to work just as well for me...might be that a larger pellet delivers more energy per inch of "meat travel", but if it doesn't smack the "off switch", it's kind of a moot point.

Lol, I never said I wasn't accurate, but it is true about the terminal shock on typical critters.  If I am off by just a little with my 50 FPE,  the outcome will be the same.  Not so much with a .177.

[Mod90]

To the best of my knowledge, the smaller .177 caliber does have one significant advantage over the..22. & .25, and that's when it comes to penetration.
With the smaller frontal surface area, the .177 can penetrate deeper than the larger caliber with less fpe. This comes in very handy when shooting at animals with skull bones that are much harder or denser than the skull of let's say a rabbit or squirrel. Takes less energy to get deep in the animals fuse box, which results in an effective kill.

[Ribbonstone]

Long ago, had a Sunday school teacher who loosened up and told the story of his service in WWII (which might have been the best sunday school lessor he ever taught).


Got hit right though the chest, about 2" from cehter line, mid chest by a 20MM round that didn't detonate.  He ran to the medic, who managed to save him (but not one lung and two ribs).


So I kin of started off doubting that a really big hole though something besides the immediate "off switch" was going to drop a critter.  Sure, 1" closer to dead center would have done it....but that little difference (on a human scale) made all the difference between listening to him speak in 1962 and reading about him in the memorial church bulletin.


Not that I don't like big fat projectiles...I really do (as a BP shooter)....but I do realize that an ice pick in the brain works just about as well as a Crusader's  broad sword.

So...my goal is to stay within the range where I'm really sure (like 97%) that I'm going to put that pellet right though the "good stuff" (heart lungs/brain)...and let the other shots pass on by.




ADDED:

How did I come to that idea?

Shotguns and upland game hunting.

Picking up birds that had just one little #7 1/2 hole though the heart, neck/spine,  or the brain.  Bad form, too long a distance, bad patterned...didn't matter.  Had to stock-stroke other birds that were flopping around (quail/pheasant/dove) to kill them even with 5 or 6 hits through non-immediately vital areas...but others with just one little hole in the right place were DRN (dead right now).


Go ahead...think that major energy and a big pellet is going to make up for poor placement...it's not, but it may make you feel better to believe so..

[triggertreat]

I agree you still have to hit the off switch regardless.  .177. may rule to many, but I'm sticking with the .25 as my experience with it has proven to be a better critter getter.

[ackuric]

Old vid but there is no replacement for displacement or in our case bore size

[grand-galop]

I agree you still have to hit the off switch regardless.  .177. may rule to many, but I'm sticking with the .25 as my experience with it has proven to be a better critter getter.

Keith!!  I think it is advantageous to look more into that .177 debate.. I remember 35 to 40 years ago, it was the norm to buy .177 or .22 for hunting and not only that, it was the only caliber aviable for airgun PERIOD!! I cannot tell you how many small games I bring back home with my 1322 and Slavia..  The only thing that is not NEGOCIABLE with such low power is you have to do your part ..  But really, it makes you a better rifleman overall.