The .177 for hunting ?

[nunofrancisco]

-

[Bryan Heimann]

Until

LOL, im not the one who need "airgun lessions" here.

was i told to Bullit, i have fun read some statements than people does. You should not even OPEN a post, trying help some1.

and once again, im glad "someone" told me that, just to prove how ignorant some people can be

And, to end my participation here, i will bet here, than i will put more game at larger distances, with a low power .177 airgun, than too many here who play with "big boys airguns" then do body shots.... than make the prays sufer till they end breathing. They wont headshot, cause they dont have the skill, and the "big fpe wepons" are too harsh to try head shots.

Why dont you spend some time on youtube, checking 10.5fpe guns kill at 80-90 yards more on UK? would be a nice lession.

And if i need a big power baby, i grab my hog .300 win magnum to kill a rabbit. that way, im sure i would ratter expasion versus the penetrarion... if i want to SMASH his body.


Why dont you, power freaks, spend more time reading airgun books? before do false statements?


i will give by closed my participation here, and glad to thanks to Bullit, than looks he know the way how a gun can be efective, on low-med power. Thanks men, its always a plazer talk with you 

The issue is that in .177, at 60 yards in field conditions- with even the lightest of a breeze- and a perfectly placed shot, on small game like squirrels even the most accurate pcp stands a chance of being blow off it's path enough to hit the animal in the jaw.  There is not an experienced hunter in the world that believes you have never wounded a animal with a 4 fpe rifle from over 50 yards.  You probably have a higher percentage of run-offs than you'd like to admit.  Even if it were in direct line with the brain, this is. 1 to 2 fpe on impact.  At a bad angle you are not gonna get through the jaw bone, and on a bird with an even smaller target you stand a good chance of hitting the beak and that is not gonna kill it.  Maybe eventually , when it starves.

Edit-  by the way, power freak and airgunner don't go together well.  I love powerful breakbarrels but they don't compare to any firearms. 

[nunofrancisco]

-

[Bryan Heimann]

.177 is great, 4 fpe is not.  I'd love to see ed canoles', or bullit's, opinion on your decision to make shots at animals from these ranges with a gun like that.  And then to recommend it to others and speak out against people that use a more powerful rifle?

[nunofrancisco]

.

[Bryan Heimann]

Agree to disagree.  You won't catch me hunting rabbit with a 4 fpe rifle at any range, and it is irresponsible to recommend anyone else to do the same.  R7 power level is about the minimum I would even attempt, at close range.

[nunofrancisco]

.

[Bryan Heimann]

And bragging about it encourages other people to try.  I thought you were done like 5 posts ago. 

[nunofrancisco]

.

[AirgunHunter]

.22 wins all the way!If you need every bit of penetration the .177 gives it probably isn't the right tool for the job.Even 500 fps in .22 is going to pass all the way through a rabbit or squirrel.The .22 retains more energy and also has a wider surface area for a better wound channel.Sure a .177 will do the job to but with a much higher margin for error.To say a .177 is a much better hunting cal is just flat out ignorant.I would much rather have a .22 at 800 fps than a .177 at 1200 fps.

[jrhunter]

LOL, im not the one who need "airgun lessions" here.

was i told to Bullit, i have fun read some statements than people does. You should not even OPEN a post, trying help some1.

and once again, im glad "someone" told me that, just to prove how ignorant some people can be

And, to end my participation here, i will bet here, than i will put more game at larger distances, with a low power .177 airgun, than too many here who play with "big boys airguns" then do body shots.... than make the prays sufer till they end breathing. They wont headshot, cause they dont have the skill, and the "big fpe wepons" are too harsh to try head shots.

Why dont you spend some time on youtube, checking 10.5fpe guns kill at 80-90 yards more on UK? would be a nice lession.

And if i need a big power baby, i grab my hog .300 win magnum to kill a rabbit. that way, im sure i would ratter expasion versus the penetrarion... if i want to SMASH his body.


Why dont you, power freaks, spend more time reading airgun books? before do false statements?


i will give by closed my participation here, and glad to thanks to Bullit, than looks he know the way how a gun can be efective, on low-med power. Thanks men, its always a plazer talk with you 

The less energy you have the less likely you get a clean kill. And before you go of again about using your .300 for rabbit, the .300 is for elk, moose, black bear, and brown bear not rabbits. Air rifles with 10+ ft.lbs are for hunting small game, any less should be left for close range birds.

i know for what a .300 should be. im not a "new" hunter. since i remenber i was "me" than i hunt with my father. i was... (idk the words well in english) being Ironic?

and i must disagre. if you have still some FPe, eneought to break a skull, less power = less recoil. less recoil, more control of your HOLD when shooting. so you can place the pellet better, in the zone you SHOULD know it will be less tought to penetrate on skulls.

if anyone older than10years old or less than 70 or has a medical issue should not flinch from any air rifle, besides some super big bores.

[TriggerHappyDude]

This discussion got pretty heated i like that, it means that the topic is good one!

Here is what i was thinking from a more maths point of view.
If we take a 0.55 gram pellet and propel it at its target at 250 m/s we get 17.188 J of kinetic energy. Sorry Yanks, my brain works in metric This as something around 12-13 fpe i think.

OK, so think about this, we get the same energy from a 34.376 kg mass travelling at 1 m/s, that's
75.786 pounds at 3.28 fps. Would that kill a squirrel? 
What if this 75.786 pound mass was soft and fluffy?

So this lead me to believe that there must be a balance of different things in play here, like the material composition of the projectile, projectile shape etc ...

So how does caliber fit into this ballistic jigsaw puzzle?

Lets assume that our air rifle puts out a constant 16J - regardless of caliber. Then the only variables are mass and speed. This relationship is inverse, meaning that more mass means less speed - still the same energy.
With this in mind, lets compare .177 and .22 caliber with round nose pellets each weighing the respective amount to produce 16J or about 12fpe and being made form the same materials.

Now the complicated bit,
If we assume we get 16J at POI with both calibers, what will be the actual physical difference in the projectiles effect on target?

from here on out i am making assumptions based on my weak experience and knowledge - so please share your thoughts!

Under the conditions mentioned above, it is my opinion that .22 cal hole would be bigger but shallower, .177 would be smaller and deeper.
Let me explain my reasoning, and its simple, the .177 delivers the 16J to a smaller surface area on the target. It uses less energy to penetrate deeper.

and if i assume my assumption is correct, i would come to the conclusion that i would use .22 for body shots and .177 for head shots ... simply because i think that .177 should penetrate bone better as it would use less of its energy to do it.

does this sound crazy?

Another thing, i just read an abstract of a paper on Energy requirements for the penetration of heads of domestic stock. Approximately 16 and 127 Joules were required to penetrate the heads of adult sheep and cattle, respectively. Can someone please explain this sentence to me?

[Bryan Heimann]

This discussion got pretty heated i like that, it means that the topic is good one!

Here is what i was thinking from a more maths point of view.
If we take a 0.55 gram pellet and propel it at its target at 250 m/s we get 17.188 J of kinetic energy. Sorry Yanks, my brain works in metric This as something around 12-13 fpe i think.

OK, so think about this, we get the same energy from a 34.376 kg mass travelling at 1 m/s, that's
75.786 pounds at 3.28 fps. Would that kill a squirrel? 
What if this 75.786 pound mass was soft and fluffy?

So this lead me to believe that there must be a balance of different things in play here, like the material composition of the projectile, projectile shape etc ...

So how does caliber fit into this ballistic jigsaw puzzle?

Lets assume that our air rifle puts out a constant 16J - regardless of caliber. Then the only variables are mass and speed. This relationship is inverse, meaning that more mass means less speed - still the same energy.
With this in mind, lets compare .177 and .22 caliber with round nose pellets each weighing the respective amount to produce 16J or about 12fpe and being made form the same materials.

Now the complicated bit,
If we assume we get 16J at POI with both calibers, what will be the actual physical difference in the projectiles effect on target?

from here on out i am making assumptions based on my weak experience and knowledge - so please share your thoughts!

Under the conditions mentioned above, it is my opinion that .22 cal hole would be bigger but shallower, .177 would be smaller and deeper.

and if i assume my assumption is correct, i would come to the conclusion that i would use .22 for body shots and .177 for head shots ...

does this sound crazy?

Depends on the thickness of the skull.  IMHO they are both equally good for head shots.  I've shot a  lot of squirrels in the vitals with a mid-powered .177 springer and it kills them quickly.  I have fudged some shots with a .22 that I thought were going to be run off, but instead were dead when they hit the ground.  From 40 yards, a squirrel hit through the shoulders using a .177 10.5 grain crosman dome from a 12-13 fpe springer suffers some pretty extensive damage.  It's the hits through the ribs with no shoulder or spine damage, I believe, that result in run-offs and I think that is where the larger ammo starts to shine

[Swedge]

9mm or 45??  oh wrong site..lol 

[Bryan Heimann]

I hope we can keep this thread alive with some pictures of kills yall made with your .177 air rifles.  Please- use some discretion, to prevent new members from making a mistake!

[mobilehomer]

Swedge - .45 ACP all the way!!!

[jrhunter]

This discussion got pretty heated i like that, it means that the topic is good one!

Here is what i was thinking from a more maths point of view.
If we take a 0.55 gram pellet and propel it at its target at 250 m/s we get 17.188 J of kinetic energy. Sorry Yanks, my brain works in metric This as something around 12-13 fpe i think.

OK, so think about this, we get the same energy from a 34.376 kg mass travelling at 1 m/s, that's
75.786 pounds at 3.28 fps. Would that kill a squirrel? 
What if this 75.786 pound mass was soft and fluffy?

So this lead me to believe that there must be a balance of different things in play here, like the material composition of the projectile, projectile shape etc ...

So how does caliber fit into this ballistic jigsaw puzzle?

Lets assume that our air rifle puts out a constant 16J - regardless of caliber. Then the only variables are mass and speed. This relationship is inverse, meaning that more mass means less speed - still the same energy.
With this in mind, lets compare .177 and .22 caliber with round nose pellets each weighing the respective amount to produce 16J or about 12fpe and being made form the same materials.

Now the complicated bit,
If we assume we get 16J at POI with both calibers, what will be the actual physical difference in the projectiles effect on target?

from here on out i am making assumptions based on my weak experience and knowledge - so please share your thoughts!

Under the conditions mentioned above, it is my opinion that .22 cal hole would be bigger but shallower, .177 would be smaller and deeper.
Let me explain my reasoning, and its simple, the .177 delivers the 16J to a smaller surface area on the target. It uses less energy to penetrate deeper.

and if i assume my assumption is correct, i would come to the conclusion that i would use .22 for body shots and .177 for head shots ... simply because i think that .177 should penetrate bone better as it would use less of its energy to do it.

does this sound crazy?

Another thing, i just read an abstract of a paper on Energy requirements for the penetration of heads of domestic stock. Approximately 16 and 127 Joules were required to penetrate the heads of adult sheep and cattle, respectively. Can someone please explain this sentence to me?

An animal like a rabbit that are easy to kill and have soft thin skin have no need for lots of penetration because the vitals are not under .5-1.5 inches deep they are less than that, so the .177 becomes useless and .22 rains supreme with bigger holes, heavier pellet, and most of the time higher energies on impact. No need for lots of penetration, yet has enough velocity to take longer shots and still retain the best possible bit of energy, where most springer .25s shoot in the 600's most .22s shoot in the 800's or 750's depending on gun, powerplant, and pellet weight, shape and if it is good in your gun.

An animal like a squirrel is tough to kill, but still don't require lots of penetration to kill or get to the skull or heart/lungs. A bigger hole, more pellet weight, and most of the time higher impact energies. Again .177 becomes useless and .22 becomes the better option. It may not be as popular but lots of .177 pellets are waddcutters for competition and plinking. All most all .22 pellets are for hunting and can be used for plinking.

[jrhunter]

This discussion got pretty heated i like that, it means that the topic is good one!

Here is what i was thinking from a more maths point of view.
If we take a 0.55 gram pellet and propel it at its target at 250 m/s we get 17.188 J of kinetic energy. Sorry Yanks, my brain works in metric This as something around 12-13 fpe i think.

OK, so think about this, we get the same energy from a 34.376 kg mass travelling at 1 m/s, that's
75.786 pounds at 3.28 fps. Would that kill a squirrel? 
What if this 75.786 pound mass was soft and fluffy?

So this lead me to believe that there must be a balance of different things in play here, like the material composition of the projectile, projectile shape etc ...

So how does caliber fit into this ballistic jigsaw puzzle?

Lets assume that our air rifle puts out a constant 16J - regardless of caliber. Then the only variables are mass and speed. This relationship is inverse, meaning that more mass means less speed - still the same energy.
With this in mind, lets compare .177 and .22 caliber with round nose pellets each weighing the respective amount to produce 16J or about 12fpe and being made form the same materials.

Now the complicated bit,
If we assume we get 16J at POI with both calibers, what will be the actual physical difference in the projectiles effect on target?

from here on out i am making assumptions based on my weak experience and knowledge - so please share your thoughts!

Under the conditions mentioned above, it is my opinion that .22 cal hole would be bigger but shallower, .177 would be smaller and deeper.

and if i assume my assumption is correct, i would come to the conclusion that i would use .22 for body shots and .177 for head shots ...

does this sound crazy?

Depends on the thickness of the skull.  IMHO they are both equally good for head shots.  I've shot a  lot of squirrels in the vitals with a mid-powered .177 springer and it kills them quickly.  I have fudged some shots with a .22 that I thought were going to be run off, but instead were dead when they hit the ground.  From 40 yards, a squirrel hit through the shoulders using a .177 10.5 grain crosman dome from a 12-13 fpe springer suffers some pretty extensive damage.  It's the hits through the ribs with no shoulder or spine damage, I believe, that result in run-offs and I think that is where the larger ammo starts to shine

A .177 Crosman domed pellet going 733 fps makes 12.51 ft.lbs at the muzzle, and 8.7 ft.lbs on impact at 40 yards. Not bad, but I would use that setup at 25-30 yards which makes 9.6-10 ft.lbs on impact.

[William]

Kinetic energy is what counts, as well as the size. .22 cal. over a .177 and .25 cal over a .22. Pretty obvious dont you think. The larger the pellet the better the odds are of hitting vital organs. As far as POI is concerned there is very little to no difference in the trajectory between a 22 and 177, you may gain a few extra yards of flat shooting with a 177 but you loose some energy. From what i see there is only a 1/4" difference in a 8 grain 177 versus 14.33 grain 22 if the 177 is traveling at 1000 FPS and the 22 is traveling at 850 FPS. If each caliber is at the same FPS there is no difference in trajectory. (All zeroed at 40 yards of coarse). Same goes for the 22 versus the 25 cal.

Yes the 177 will be just fine for small game out to 50 yards if shot placement is correct, but the higher cal will hit harder and do more damage, just plain and simple statistics. Now if you boost those projectiles up to several thousand FPS then I will take the 177 over the others for small to medium game at longer ranges. Just my thoughts. I'll stick to them as well!

[bubba zanetti]

9mm or 45??  oh wrong site..lol

LOL! Nice 

BZ