Nitro Venom .22 or .177?

[Will403536]

WalMart has both for $149. I ordered a wood-stock .177, and a synthetic .22, and I will just not pick up the one I don't want.

I am looking to do small game/pest hunting and target plinking maybe for fun.

I know .22 has more power, but it's a big slower. I thought being able to shoot a supersonic PBA round once in a while in the .177 for novelty would be cool, but I also have neighbors. That brings me to wonder: are .22's louder?

I know .22 pellets are pricier, that's negligible for me though, $2 more per tin.

I need you guys' advice. Thanks.

[longislandhunter]

If you plan on using the rifle for small game hunting then you're better off with the .22 cal.  You can of course effectively hunt with the .177 but the .22, even though it's slower, conveys more energy and will do an overall better job when it comes to hunting.

Jeff

[cvedrick]

bigger, fatter, slower, but with bunches of energy = .45 ACP

smaller, faster, less energy = 9mm Luger

Your choice, better off, ask any of Americas enemies prior to 1985.......

(SF excluded, they get their choice these days...)

[randomgunner]

.22 caliber has a large amount of energy 20 fpe at 750+ fps nothing to mess with. A lot better that barely 7-8 fpe. at farther distances, .22 will carry more power.  .177 risks losing so much power that by the time it gets to the target,  it may hit with the power of a pebble. But for close distances, .177,is good.  Especially for small, fast moving birds.  I have killed everything with my 1377 in 177 cal. Crows,doves, squirrels,rabbits,house. Sparrows, and starlings.

P.S: stay away from pbs ammo. It can destroy your seals.

[Will403536]

Don't both the .177 and .22 use the same nitro piston part as the power source, meaning they would have the same foot-pounds of energy?

I've also heard pellets become less accurate when they go too fast due to the effects of wind resistance and supersonic factors, and 800-1000fps is the optimal velocity. But also that a faster pellet would allow the target less time to move or jump at the sound of the shot.

I think this may ultimately come down to synthetic vs. wood stock. I like the look of wood a lot better, but I want to be able to bang it around, get it wet, etc.

[RatRacer]

You need to account for the extra mass of the .22 over the .177 for the energy difference.

[Smaug]

There are things to consider besides just energy at distance.

Ammo cost? .22 costs double.

Penetration? .22 is slower and has a bigger cross section. Will it penetrate your target at distance?

Supersonic issues? Lighter .177 pellets in a magnum class spring airgun are generally inaccurate, especially so if they go supersonic. Heavier .177 pellets are not supersonic, even in magnum class airguns.

Trajectory? .22 is slower and drops faster. If you're going to shoot it at a distance, you'll have to compensate more to hit the target.

Ammo Availability? .177 is easy to find locally, and there are even some choices. With .22, there is often only one choice, if you can even find it. Let's not even get into .20 and .25. That's pretty much internet order only. If you don't mind ordering all your ammo online, maybe consider a .20 and have a  good compromise between .177 and .22. Not a lot of gun choices in .20 though...

Here's some good data for comparison, from the RWS 48. I couldn't find similar data for the Benji Nitros.

http://straightshooters.com/ourtake/ottest48.html

Pick a heavy pellet, let's say Beeman Kodiak:

In .177 - it is 17 ft-lbs. of energy (FPE) and 857 fps at the muzzle, and 10 ft-lbs. and 652 fps at 50 yards.
In .22 - it is 21 FPE, 659 fps at the muzzle, and 13 FPE, 521 fps at 50 yards.


Now, let's pick a lighter pellet, RWS Superdome:
.177: 17 FPE, 967 fps at muzzle; 6 FPE, 586 fps at 50 yards (Probably good enough for birds, pushing it for squirrels)
.22: 25 FPE, 884 fps at muzzle, 7 FPE, 451 fps at 50 yards (questionable penetration at this distance)


Realistically, I'm going to do a lot more plinking and target shooting with my airgun than hunting, so I went with .177. For anything that needs .22, I'll just use my powderburners.

[Will403536]

That's a very thorough mathematical analysis Smaug, but I have a question:

What is the realistic effective range of a 900FPS .22 14gr pellet? I would love to shoot as far as possible, but I had only anticipated targets up to 30-40yd max.

At such distances, would the .22 pellet compensation be significant?

[Will403536]

OK so I've looked at a lot of resources online, but what I've found is

Crosman NP .177 caliber, shooting 7.9gr CPHP pellets, avg FPS ~940 --> 15.5 fpe
Crosman NP .22 caliber, shooting 14.3gr CPHP pellets, avg FPS ~730 --> 17fpe

So the energy difference is not as significant as many may believe. Crosman's own website claims the .177 is 18fpe and the .22 is 21fpe. Not true, at least in real-world tests.

Given this negligible difference in energy, would anybody recommend the .177 over the .22 for aerodynamic/speed reasons?

[longislandhunter]

.177 projectile will be more flat shooting while the .22 projectile will have more of an arc during flight as the distance gets further, however if you sight in your rifle properly and practice with it at varying ranges the arc is not an impediment to accuracy.  Also, given my "druthers" for hunting purposes I'd much rather hit the target with the larger .22 projectile for the larger hole/wound and increased blood loss.  Just my opinion but like I said in an earlier post,,,, the .177 is an effective hunting caliber as well.  Your choice..

Jeff

[3ants]

if you want a flater trojectory in your 22 get some 12-13 grain pellets

[randomgunner]

12-13 grains in .22, depending on velocity, could go super sonic.

[Smaug]

That's a very thorough mathematical analysis Smaug, but I have a question:

What is the realistic effective range of a 900FPS .22 14gr pellet? I would love to shoot as far as possible, but I had only anticipated targets up to 30-40yd max.

At such distances, would the .22 pellet compensation be significant?

I would say 60-75 yards. Maybe 75-100 yards with the .177. With the .177, they make 15 gr. pellets too, and they have a smaller cross section, so they can be even better than .22 at distance.

You're better off with .177, unless you're really going to push the size limit of what you're going to shoot. For instance, if you may be shooting at coyotes, I think the .22 has a clear advantage. It doesn't sound like you'll be shooting any coyotes or hogs with this gun.

The rest of the time, you'll thank yourself for going .177 every time you buy pellets.

I was shooting my Stoeger X20 today everywhere between 10 and 100 yards. I can still HIT things at 100 yards, (with a 5 mil dot hold-over and Crosman Premier Light pellets) it just isn't hitting very hard by the time it get there, hehehe. It wouldn't even punch through a Powerade bottle. I would guess the pellet is moving about 350 fps by that distance. This is only a 900 fps gun in .177, too.

By way of comparison, if the same powerplant were propelling a .22, and it started out at 700 fps instead of 900 fps, you'd probably have to hold over about 6 feet.  That's why folks go for these magnum springers, if they shoot harder from the muzzle, they also have more downrange energy. The problem lies in lost accuracy.

[gene_sc]

If I were gonna do mostly hunting I would take a .22. Only makes sense in my opinion. 40 yards and under you will most likely kill what every you hit wiff a .22. A .177 is good for most small stuff. I do not hunt but it all makes sense logically to me...

I love to punch paper and only own a couple .22's. Rarely shoot them. But if I were a avid hunter I would take my ..22 wiff me...

[Bullit]

Yeah, what Gene said...
If your just going "all around" shooting, staying under 50 yards, and hunting rabbits and squirrels, a well placed .177 heavy will easily do the job.  It really depends on your efficiency, not just the pellet/AG.  If you're hunting long distances, for bigger prey...I'd be looking a more powerful airgun/pellet...or a 22lr 
While the .177 will have a little less FPE, it'll penetrate easier and further than the .22 from the same powersource.  So, while the hole isn't as big, the depth of the .177 makes up volume of damage.....and could be a wash...I don't know the exact difference in volumes, but I know a dead rabbit doesn't know either.