R9 barrel

[PGunner]

I have an R9 .20 cal. and I see amo is gotten real scarce.
I'm thinking of changing my barrel.

What would you rather have a .177 or a .22 cal?
If you don't mind what is the biggest thing you have killed with it?

[Yogi]

.22 caliber.
40lbs monkey.

-Y

[Bayman]

I have a Hw95 (R9) in 177. It's very accurate. The toughest critter it's killed is a grey squirrel. I have recently considered  changing it to 20 cal because I thought it would carry more energy than the 177 and be flatter than the same gun in 22. A turn of bad luck events put an end on my plans to switch to 20 and I should consider myself lucky now that 20 caliber pellets are so scarce. Anyway this 177 / 22 debate is always a bloodbath. My preference between the two on this rifle is 177. It's flatter shooting which is good if you are looking to hunt smaller critters at extended ranges. I killed a crow at 70 yards with 177 Hw50 and a starling at something like 104 yards (IIRC) with the Hw95.
22 is better if you're gonna wallop bigger critters like raccoons and possums inside 40 yards. Past that the loopy trajectory will require alot of range/holdover expertise to land the shot in the right place.
Bottom line is it depends on what you want to do with the gun and how good you are at range/holdover estimation.

[Steelontarget]

I have a Hw95 (R9) in 177. It's very accurate. The toughest critter it's killed is a grey squirrel. I have recently considered  changing it to 20 cal because I thought it would carry more energy than the 177 and be flatter than the same gun in 22. A turn of bad luck events put an end on my plans to switch to 20 and I should consider myself lucky now that 20 caliber pellets are so scarce. Anyway this 177 / 22 debate is always a bloodbath. My preference between the two on this rifle is 177. It's flatter shooting which is good if you are looking to hunt smaller critters at extended ranges. I killed a crow at 70 yards with 177 Hw50 and a starling at something like 104 yards (IIRC) with the Hw95.
22 is better if you're gonna wallop bigger critters like raccoons and possums inside 40 yards. Past that the loopy trajectory will require alot of range/holdover expertise to land the shot in the right place.
Bottom line is it depends on what you want to do with the gun and how good you are at range/holdover estimation.

I have an HW95 and an R9 both in .177.  My favorite pellet is the heavier 10.5 grain Crosman Premier Heavy.

It has excellent accuracy and bucks the wind better than the lighter pellet.  I also managed to kill a squirrel at 95 yard with that pellet out of my R9 after about 5-6 shots.  It will go through a soup can at 100 yards. 

I don't have any experience with the .20 caliber but it would seem to me that trying a heavier pellet before switching calibers might be worth a try.

[PGunner]

The .20 is a good cal. but not many of them around and expensive so it is going to be move it to a .177 or a .20 just not sure I like both and both have there good and not so good quality's.
Then I guess if it's to go for a little more power or more speed.

[Bayman]

I have a Hw95 (R9) in 177. It's very accurate. The toughest critter it's killed is a grey squirrel. I have recently considered  changing it to 20 cal because I thought it would carry more energy than the 177 and be flatter than the same gun in 22. A turn of bad luck events put an end on my plans to switch to 20 and I should consider myself lucky now that 20 caliber pellets are so scarce. Anyway this 177 / 22 debate is always a bloodbath. My preference between the two on this rifle is 177. It's flatter shooting which is good if you are looking to hunt smaller critters at extended ranges. I killed a crow at 70 yards with 177 Hw50 and a starling at something like 104 yards (IIRC) with the Hw95.
22 is better if you're gonna wallop bigger critters like raccoons and possums inside 40 yards. Past that the loopy trajectory will require alot of range/holdover expertise to land the shot in the right place.
Bottom line is it depends on what you want to do with the gun and how good you are at range/holdover estimation.

I have an HW95 and an R9 both in .177.  My favorite pellet is the heavier 10.5 grain Crosman Premier Heavy.

It has excellent accuracy and bucks the wind better than the lighter pellet.  I also managed to kill a squirrel at 95 yard with that pellet out of my R9 after about 5-6 shots.  It will go through a soup can at 100 yards. 

I don't have any experience with the .20 caliber but it would seem to me that trying a heavier pellet before switching calibers might be worth a try.

good point Mike I've tried the 10.34s and the accuracy wasn't good but that might have been the tin because the skirts were all deformed. My gun loses 2.5-3 fpe at the muzzle with Barracuda match 10.5s so that's no good. It normally makes 15 fpe with 8.44 so the gun is healthy. Maybe I have to keep searching for a heavy pellet it likes. 

[Steelontarget]

I have a Hw95 (R9) in 177. It's very accurate. The toughest critter it's killed is a grey squirrel. I have recently considered  changing it to 20 cal because I thought it would carry more energy than the 177 and be flatter than the same gun in 22. A turn of bad luck events put an end on my plans to switch to 20 and I should consider myself lucky now that 20 caliber pellets are so scarce. Anyway this 177 / 22 debate is always a bloodbath. My preference between the two on this rifle is 177. It's flatter shooting which is good if you are looking to hunt smaller critters at extended ranges. I killed a crow at 70 yards with 177 Hw50 and a starling at something like 104 yards (IIRC) with the Hw95.
22 is better if you're gonna wallop bigger critters like raccoons and possums inside 40 yards. Past that the loopy trajectory will require alot of range/holdover expertise to land the shot in the right place.
Bottom line is it depends on what you want to do with the gun and how good you are at range/holdover estimation.

I have an HW95 and an R9 both in .177.  My favorite pellet is the heavier 10.5 grain Crosman Premier Heavy.

It has excellent accuracy and bucks the wind better than the lighter pellet.  I also managed to kill a squirrel at 95 yard with that pellet out of my R9 after about 5-6 shots.  It will go through a soup can at 100 yards. 

I don't have any experience with the .20 caliber but it would seem to me that trying a heavier pellet before switching calibers might be worth a try.

good point Mike I've tried the 10.34s and the accuracy wasn't good but that might have been the tin because the skirts were all deformed. My gun loses 2.5-3 fpe at the muzzle with Barracuda match 10.5s so that's no good. It normally makes 15 fpe with 8.44 so the gun is healthy. Maybe I have to keep searching for a heavy pellet it likes.

At short ranges the lighter pellets are a little more accurate than the heavier pellets.  However, that advantage diminishes at longer ranges.

If I were going to keep the distance at 25 yards or less, I'd probably keep shooting the lighter pellets.  However, I like to stretch the range at which I shoot all my guns.  The air rifles are no exception.

I like to hit soup cans at 100 yards with my air rifles.  That isn't possible with consistency with the lighter pellets.

[nced]

I have a Hw95 (R9) in 177. It's very accurate. The toughest critter it's killed is a grey squirrel. I have recently considered  changing it to 20 cal because I thought it would carry more energy than the 177 and be flatter than the same gun in 22. A turn of bad luck events put an end on my plans to switch to 20 and I should consider myself lucky now that 20 caliber pellets are so scarce. Anyway this 177 / 22 debate is always a bloodbath. My preference between the two on this rifle is 177. It's flatter shooting which is good if you are looking to hunt smaller critters at extended ranges. I killed a crow at 70 yards with 177 Hw50 and a starling at something like 104 yards (IIRC) with the Hw95.
22 is better if you're gonna wallop bigger critters like raccoons and possums inside 40 yards. Past that the loopy trajectory will require alot of range/holdover expertise to land the shot in the right place.
Bottom line is it depends on what you want to do with the gun and how good you are at range/holdover estimation.

I have an HW95 and an R9 both in .177.  My favorite pellet is the heavier 10.5 grain Crosman Premier Heavy.

It has excellent accuracy and bucks the wind better than the lighter pellet.  I also managed to kill a squirrel at 95 yard with that pellet out of my R9 after about 5-6 shots.  It will go through a soup can at 100 yards. 

I don't have any experience with the .20 caliber but it would seem to me that trying a heavier pellet before switching calibers might be worth a try.

good point Mike I've tried the 10.34s and the accuracy wasn't good but that might have been the tin because the skirts were all deformed. My gun loses 2.5-3 fpe at the muzzle with Barracuda match 10.5s so that's no good. It normally makes 15 fpe with 8.44 so the gun is healthy. Maybe I have to keep searching for a heavy pellet it likes.

At short ranges the lighter pellets are a little more accurate than the heavier pellets.  However, that advantage diminishes at longer ranges.

If I were going to keep the distance at 25 yards or less, I'd probably keep shooting the lighter pellets.  However, I like to stretch the range at which I shoot all my guns.  The air rifles are no exception.

I like to hit soup cans at 100 yards with my air rifles.  That isn't possible with consistency with the lighter pellets.

"At short ranges the lighter pellets are a little more accurate than the heavier pellets."
All depends of the gun and pellet!..........

For the first few seasons of sniping West Virginia squirrels my brother only shot boxed 10.5 grain Crosman Premiers because he liked the way they would drive through a squirrel at any angle through the vitals. After a couple seasons using the 10.5 grain CPH he switched to the boxed 7.9 grain Crosman Premiers because he found that the flatter trajectory of the CPL trumped the deeper penetration and slightly better wind drift resistance of the CPH.
Here are a couple 50 yard groups my brother shot with CPHs..........


Here are a couple 50 yard groups I shot using 7.9 grain boxed Crosman Premiers...........

[Lt. Dan]

When I decided to order a R9 I began asking around and sending PMs to those whose experience and knowledge I respect.  I asked whether to get a .177 or a .22.   My unofficial results was a little over a 1/3 said .22 and 2/3 said .177.

I'm very,  very pleased with the .177 in my MM tuned R9 from FDAR.

[PGunner]

Interesting that 2/3 said .177.
I'm not going to do anything at the moment just for later if I decide to change. I like the 20 cal it does have a lot of the benefits of .177 and some of the .22 just expensive amo.
The biggest thing I've shot with mine is armadillo fun to shoot there nerves make them do a back flip about 2 ft. in the air.

[limbshaker]

I'd pick the .177 every time.

Personally I've never had a .22 barrel from Weihrauch that was accurate enough to keep. Never had a problem from my .177s.

[nced]

Interesting that 2/3 said .177.
I'm not going to do anything at the moment just for later if I decide to change. I like the 20 cal it does have a lot of the benefits of .177 and some of the .22 just expensive amo.
The biggest thing I've shot with mine is armadillo fun to shoot there nerves make them do a back flip about 2 ft. in the air.

"20 cal it does have a lot of the benefits of .177 and some of the .22"
LOL....that's the "Doc Beeman" line of reasoning when he was pushing the .20 cal R1 and .20 pellets he was selling at the time claiming that the .20 R1 was the best of both worlds. In general I would agree with this for piston guns with large and long receivers having a large swept volume of air (R1 has a 30mm receiver). LOL......It's also counter productive to squish the same volume of air down a skinny .177 bore.

When I bought a .20 R9 decades ago (26mm receiver) I found the opposite to be true. My .20 cal was the "simply worst of both worlds" having a loopier than .177 cal trajectory" and less impact at the target than the .22 cal (judging by tree squirrels taken).

As mentioned in other replies, after 18 months of messing with the .20/.22 barrels on my R9s I sold both the .20 & .22 barrels reverting back to .177 never to look back.

[Yogi]

One real advantage of the R9 in .177 is that you can detune it to 12 fpe and shoot light pellets or/and you can get up to 14-15 fpe and shoot heavy pellets.

I would not shoot any pellet heavier than 16 grains in a .22 R9.

-Y

[PGunner]

In a 22 i like from 10 gr. to about 14 gr. and in a .177 7.5 to max 10gr.

[Bayman]

I like to hit soup cans at 100 yards with my air rifles.  That isn't possible with consistency with the lighter pellets.

I have to disagree. Maybe if the wind is up. But once dialed in it's not that hard. Also my 15 fpe gun sends a 8.44 through both sides of a metal coffee can at 100yds. It's hard to make up for 2-3 fpe less at the barrel in BC with a 177 pellet. The reason I have stayed with mid weight pellets. So far.

[pdxFrank]

"Here are a couple 50 yard groups my brother shot with CPHs.........."

Those pics have been SO well-used sir.  How about surprising us with new results from this decade?

[nced]

Those pics have been SO well-used sir.  How about surprising us with new results from this decade?

"LOL....what's the problem?"
There are probably more than a couple new readers on this forum that have never seen my old and new pics and LOL...."one pic is worth a thousand words".
The two "CPH R9 groups posted were shot "back to back" and at's the only scan I have of groups my brother shot in 2001 using my home tuned .177 R9 that was sold to him while I still lived in WV.  They get posted because they're shot from a bench and show the abilities of a well tuned .177 R9 and CPHs better than my "bucket and sticks" shooting style. Therefore the groups demonstrate better the removal of the shooter from the equation. 

"How about surprising us with new results from this decade?"

LOL.......demanding aren't we?   Considering that I'm currently 75 years old with "eyes to match" and don't shoot as much as I used to, here are a few later groups just for your enjoyment. However I'm guessing that you've also seen these more than a few times since I post here rather regularly.

Here is my best .177 HW95 group I shot a 4 years ago...........


Two years ago.............


Two weeks ago...........

[Mark 611]

Here's my thoughts on this topic, I personally want a smooth performing rifle, a good shot cycle leads to better accuracy in a spring gun period! I find the larger calibers like the .20 or .22cal to be way better performers for longer range shooting, with energy over a .177cal, if your planning to shoot under 50yds? the rifle you have with a 10.5gn will probably do the job! if your planning to shoot larger critters like ground hogs or coon's your going to need to shoot pellets that are harder in their castings like the Crosman pellets, out at distances beyond 30yds, Theirs nothing bad about a .177cal 95/R9 rifle in this caliber, with the right set up, I just find it more of a violent and more hold sensitive over the larger bores, I hear folks complain about LOOPY or more hold over with the .22cal or .20cal, which IMO is not worth the argument for me! Learn to what you have! It's called Marksmanship abilities! This what makes a true shooter!

[avator]

I got an idea.... how bout we have a little more respect for each other?

[longhunter]

Those pics have been SO well-used sir.  How about surprising us with new results from this decade?

"LOL....what's the problem?"
There are probably more than a couple new readers on this forum that have never seen my old and new pics and LOL...."one pic is worth a thousand words".
The two "CPH R9 groups posted were shot "back to back" and at's the only scan I have of groups my brother shot in 2001 using my home tuned .177 R9 that was sold to him while I still lived in WV.  They get posted because they're shot from a bench and show the abilities of a well tuned .177 R9 and CPHs better than my "bucket and sticks" shooting style. Therefore the groups demonstrate better the removal of the shooter from the equation. 

"How about surprising us with new results from this decade?"

LOL.......demanding aren't we?   Considering that I'm currently 75 years old with "eyes to match" and don't shoot as much as I used to, here are a few later groups just for your enjoyment. However I'm guessing that you've also seen these more than a few times since I post here rather regularly.

Here is my best .177 HW95 group I shot a 4 years ago...........


Two years ago.............


Two weeks ago...........

TOUCHE