The .177 for hunting ?

[Bullit]

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.

  To say that the .177 is "useless", for hunting, is very short sided.
The European Hunters have been using the .177 for hunting for many years, and using rifles that are limited to 12 FPE or less, by permit law.
  I think many American airgunners, (especially new owners),  are consumed by the "power and caliber" opinion, as the only way to go.
  Many don't understand the power loss at POI for .22 caliber.  Some don't want to acknowledge the advantages of an accurate, balanced package, to aid the hunter.  Same with penetration vs. hole size.
  I've posted before about using identical rifles, in both calibers.   I kept the .177 rifles.  (1)12fpe & (1)18fpe.  Both have more than enough power and expansion, for small game at 50 yards.
 Again, some here might review the actual numbers of the RWS 34, to see that the differences in .22 v .177,  aren't big as you think.  Especially when you consider the extra 35-50% FPE needed, to punch the bigger hole.
http://www.straightshooters.com/rws-model-34-.177-beech.html

[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.

  To say that the .177 is "useless", for hunting, is very short sided.
The European Hunters have been using the .177 for hunting for many years, and using rifles that are limited to 12 FPE or less, by permit law.
  I think many American airgunners, (especially new owners),  are consumed by the "power and caliber" opinion, as the only way to go.
  Many don't understand the power loss at POI for .22 caliber.  Some don't want to acknowledge the advantages of an accurate, balanced package, to aid the hunter.  Same with penetration vs. hole size.
  I've posted before about using identical rifles, in both calibers.   I kept the .177 rifles.  (1)12fpe & (1)18fpe.  Both have more than enough power and expansion, for small game at 50 yards.
 Again, some here might review the actual numbers of the RWS 34, to see that the differences in .22 v .177,  aren't big as you think.  Especially when you consider the extra 35-50% FPE needed, to punch the bigger hole.
http://www.straightshooters.com/rws-model-34-.177-beech.html

But still you don't need an extra inch or inch and a half of penetration in the heart and lungs for a clean kill, you need only 1 in or 2 in of penetration for the kill. .22 makes the bigger hole, usually puts more energy on target, usually dumps more energy into the target, has more than enough penetration, and it retains energy better for longer shots.

[cwlongshot]

I prefer the .22. But in fairness I don't have a .177 that exceeds 15FPE.

Knowing what I know, I have no doubt that a more powderful gun in .177 will change my feelings. But for me now, if I need more power I increase bullet diameter. Its kind of the same thinking our fore fathers had with black powder rifles.

Back then they knew that black powder could only reach so much velocity. BUT it would do it moving a 50g .32 cal ball for small game or a 54 cal ball of 230grains. So if you wanted to kill a Grizz that 54 was a better choice but filling the pot with squirrels and rabbits grab the 32 cal...

 

CW

[gandalfretlaw]

Just wanted to chime in here and point out that MATCH pellets are actually pretty good for hunting especially when you have ample power and a small caliber (177). They act much like hollow points expanding quite a bit and transferring the power to the game with a hard punch. It's the domes that are prone to punch through which may be just the thing if your shooting a tough skuled varmint in the head. I'm not really sure that CPHP qualify as hollow points either. They are very hard and I don't think they expand well where other hollow points like Beeman or Predator are well proven. There was a British video of them shooting dead rabbit heads with round heads and then flat points. The round heads made nice clean holes on both sides. The flat points/match blew chunks of skull off the back side. I've tested this in clay with my whisper and round noses get better penetration with a nice clean hole where RWS Basic Match make a huge hole with a gaping wound channel and much less penetration. Retrieving the pellets, the round nose were mostly unchanged where the match expanded to around the .25, .30 area. I was really impressed.

[Bullit]

jrhunter,  The .177 for hunting is Definitely...NOT "useless".    There's a "World" full of us... been doing it for years. 
   I really do wish you would take some time to look over the link Diana 34 comparisons data results that I posted before.
   It's a great representation of a popular power class rifle, that folks buy.
   Shows hard facts,  about most of the statements you've made. 
   Especially when you get to the mid to heavy weight .177 pellets.  It's good stuff to answer many questions.
   You will also see that heavier .22 pellets don't always give "more", for the effort, and shoot  "loopier".   
   Again,,,this all goes back to the balance of your pellet and powerplant.
   I look at pellets, as I do "Arrows".  I want superior penetration.     

Nothing wrong w/pass-thru if you safely can.

[jrhunter]

Just wanted to chime in here and point out that MATCH pellets are actually pretty good for hunting especially when you have ample power and a small caliber (177). They act much like hollow points expanding quite a bit and transferring the power to the game with a hard punch. It's the domes that are prone to punch through which may be just the thing if your shooting a tough skuled varmint in the head. I'm not really sure that CPHP qualify as hollow points either. They are very hard and I don't think they expand well where other hollow points like Beeman or Predator are well proven. There was a British video of them shooting dead rabbit heads with round heads and then flat points. The round heads made nice clean holes on both sides. The flat points/match blew chunks of skull off the back side. I've tested this in clay with my whisper and round noses get better penetration with a nice clean hole where RWS Basic Match make a huge hole with a gaping wound channel and much less penetration. Retrieving the pellets, the round nose were mostly unchanged where the match expanded to around the .25, .30 area. I was really impressed.

Yes but he was about 20 feet or so away, IMHO not hunting distance for rabbits.

[TriggerHappyDude]

Ok, no one really read my post

I keep hearing .22 has better energy retention ... how exactly? Energy is a function of mass and speed. More mass less speed etc, but most important, .22 has more surface area ergo more drag ergo slows down faster than .177 ergo more energy lost ...
This is why people say that .177 has a flatter trajectory, because its smaller and therefore has less drag... but in my example that plays no role at all.

If you ask me its all up to what animal you are shooting, at what range and if its a H&L shot or Head Shot.
But saying .177 is useless, thats just not true.

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

[jrhunter]

This video is a good comparison between the .177 and the .22, the Crosman 2100 has about 8 ft.lbs at the muzzle the Webley has around 12 ft.lbs U.K. restriction.

[gandalfretlaw]

Yes but he was about 20 feet or so away, IMHO not hunting distance for rabbits.

That was 20 yards.

[jrhunter]

Ok, no one really read my post

I keep hearing .22 has better energy retention ... how exactly? Energy is a function of mass and speed. More mass less speed etc, but most important, .22 has more surface area ergo more drag ergo slows down faster than .177 ergo more energy lost ...

If you ask me its all up to what animal you are shooting, at what range and if its a H&L shot or Head Shot.
But saying .177 is useless, thats just not true.

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

.22 dumps a larger amount of weight in to the target, creates a 1 mm larger hole, and can go through bones a little better than the .177 in my experience with my friend. Shot squirrel in the shoulder at 25 yards and it deflected off ( used his Benjamin Trail NP XL 1500 ~20 ft.lbs ) and the squirrel ran off. Same shot a little closer ( 22 yards ) with my Hatsan 1000S Striker .22 with a H&N Barracuda ( ~17.5 ft.lbs ) in the shoulder and blew threw both shoulders and dropped on a dime.

[TriggerHappyDude]

Ok, no one really read my post

I keep hearing .22 has better energy retention ... how exactly? Energy is a function of mass and speed. More mass less speed etc, but most important, .22 has more surface area ergo more drag ergo slows down faster than .177 ergo more energy lost ...

If you ask me its all up to what animal you are shooting, at what range and if its a H&L shot or Head Shot.
But saying .177 is useless, thats just not true.

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

.22 dumps a larger amount of weight in to the target, creates a 1 mm larger hole, and can go through bones a little better than the .177 in my experience with my friend. Shot squirrel in the shoulder at 25 yards and it deflected off ( used his Benjamin Trail NP XL 1500 ~20 ft.lbs ) and the squirrel ran off. Same shot a little closer ( 22 yards ) with my Hatsan 1000S Striker .22 with a H&N Barracuda ( ~17.5 ft.lbs ) in the shoulder and blew threw both shoulders and dropped on a dime.

From what you say i would assume that pellet shape is more detrimental than caliber.

[cwlongshot]

Ok, no one really read my post

I keep hearing .22 has better energy retention ... how exactly? Energy is a function of mass and speed. More mass less speed etc, but most important, .22 has more surface area ergo more drag ergo slows down faster than .177 ergo more energy lost ...

If you ask me its all up to what animal you are shooting, at what range and if its a H&L shot or Head Shot.
But saying .177 is useless, thats just not true.

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

 There are many things people are hung up on when evaluating a caliber for game. Velocity is tops for most, those in the know, know its the energy that makes things happen. This is especially true with the lower power many of our AG's generate. Talking say 6-12FPE guns.

The other variable we are touching on in this thread is pellet diameter. Its something lacking form most ''equations'' people use to evaluate a given caliber.

These pellets kill by disturbing tissue. They are too slow for the hydro static shock we see in PB's. We all know accurate shots are best right? Well, accuracy because we hit the mark, with a larger pellet, a larger area is disturbed/destroyed. The result is faster incapacitation. If all other things are equal, I referring to penetration. Yes when talking of the lower powered guns IE 12FPE < guns this is a real concern, as the power goes up, so does ability to penetrate. So this is less and less a concern.

Energy ''dump'' is another that I always get a chuckle from... The laws of physics say that for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. So the ''energy'' that's imparted into the critter is minimal at best. Its the HOLE you just put thru the vitals is what does the deed. The bigger the hole the more devastation and the more devastation is faster incapacitation.

I feel that there really is something with the diameter and actual penetration at these <12 FPE lower power levels. The 177 should provide more penetration. How much and if its enough to make a real difference...who knows. Again once you get up into the 20+FPE ranges 22 will also completely penetrate.


JMHO, But one based on facts and many years of harvesting animals with bullets.

CW

[Bullit]

Ok, no one really read my post

I keep hearing .22 has better energy retention ... how exactly? Energy is a function of mass and speed. More mass less speed etc, but most important, .22 has more surface area ergo more drag ergo slows down faster than .177 ergo more energy lost ...
This is why people say that .177 has a flatter trajectory, because its smaller and therefore has less drag... but in my example that plays no role at all.

If you ask me its all up to what animal you are shooting, at what range and if its a H&L shot or Head Shot.
But saying .177 is useless, thats just not true.

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

All of your thoughts on energy retention, drag, and penetration effort, are all correct.   A few of us have posted the same findings, and personal results of the same.  From your calculations you can tell yourself that It's true that "You get it", and the .177 is a hunter.

As far as the .177 and .22 hitting with the same 16j of force.   You will find the the .22 will use a LOT more force to punch the hole, as well as penetrating thru the same medium.
Guys...it'll be the same ratio as punching thru sheetmetal etc...function of area.
Illustration of the 2, using 16j:   The .177 takes 8j of force to punch it's hole, still has 8j of internal penetration force left...that's alot.
The .22 will need 11-12j to make it's hole.     Leaves 4-5j for penetration.  Of that leftover for internal penetration force, it will be limited by the same j/mm restrictions, (40% more), as opposed to the .177, for internal travel through the same.
You do get it.

[Bullit]

Just some food for thought to give it another perspective:
Which waterhose, can of water, etc...will leak out first?   
One with a single .22 hole,  or one with a pass-thru of two .177 holes?

[Bullit]

CW.    Sometimes when I see those terms, and kinda wonder where they came from.

[johninthecamper]

im reading what everybody is saying,trying to put it into context of my youth,when I shot everyday.then I would have 177,till the end if that period,I got a 22,using that almost always from that point.I found that I could take a farther shot.both guns were about the same fps(600). what I hit was more likely to kinectly alter its path or position at any given distance.

[Bullit]

The FPE of the 2 rifles were entirely different. Look at FPE, rather than speed. That would account for the difference in your case.  If you took that same .22 rifle, and had a duplicate of it, in .177, you would see that the .177 would be much faster, and deliver similar FPE.   FPE is where it's at.

[stonykill]

And in my example, both .177 and .22 were hitting with 16J of energy at POI - so saying that .22 has more energy is not even in the ballpark.
I was asking what actual caliber advantages were, when hitting with same energy. Only difference between shots is caliber - same shape same energy etc...

  given your criteria with everything being equal EXCEPT caliber the only difference would be entrance hole size and if the pellet exits the critter the exit wound size. If ALL other things are equal this will be the only difference.
   

[jrhunter]

Shows how better the .22 is at range than the .177.

[gandalfretlaw]

One usual thing I quickly discovered when I had my 22 NPXL and 177 whisper. I compared them in Chairgun and found that at extended ranges (30+ yards) the FPE is about the same or even worse for the 22. I think this is due to the 22 slowing down more at range. This really surprised me. Do any of you guys see this with your computations?