The .177 for hunting ?

[Bullit]

jrhunter.   Way too many flaws in that video to accept.  Starts with accuracy of either at short range.  But obviously had a sick .177 rifle for use.  Losing so much accuracy and power at 20 yards ... I'd fix the gun first.   Using only Barracuda over Dome pellets for his findings?  Shoulda fixed it and took a few shot strings, before hanging his hat on those findings.  Just 3 or 4 registered shots ?   I dunno ...  but that's what Youtube's for
 I'm sure others will chime in...but maybe look at your video a few times.

[jrhunter]

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?

What are the ME of both guns ? The NPXL in .22 is around 25 ft.lbs, the .177 Game Whisper is about a 13 ft.lbs air rifle.

[TriggerHappyDude]

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?

YES! This is what i am saying, 22. has more drag, purely as a projectile, and slows down faster than a .177 pellet of the same design. This is the same reason .177 wad cutters have steeper trajectories than round nose or pointed pellets.


Thank you Bullit, i thought i was going crazy

and thank you cwlongshot for reminding me about hydro static shock. It would be interesting to see what kind of velocities it would take to make a clean kill with a .177 due to hydrostatic shock.

[Bullit]

Walter you are correct.   The larger, slower pellet spends more time, with more surface area, in the air.  At 30yards, or more,  you DO see the pronounced changes.  It's all in the math...gravity...etc.
Any subsonic projectile emits no hydrostatic shock...just "blunt force" and penetration damage.  Just like an arrow.

[TriggerHappyDude]

Walter you are correct.   The larger, slower pellet spends more time, with more surface area, in the air.  At 30yards, or more,  you DO see the pronounced changes.  It's all in the math...gravity...etc.
Any subsonic projectile emits no hydrostatic shock...just "blunt force" and penetration damage.  Just like an arrow.

So im guessing a supersonic .177 would do, but keeping it supersonic till 50 yards would take 2953 fps muzzle velocity thats 164 FPE for a 8.49 grain, that would be some crazy .177 rifle!

I know of the adverse effects on accuracy, but always thought that the worst of this came when the pellet goes from supersonic to subsonic. Don't shoot supersonic .177 much so i never went any deeper. 

[gandalfretlaw]

What are the ME of both guns ? The NPXL in .22 is around 25 ft.lbs, the .177 Game Whisper is about a 13 ft.lbs air rifle.

I'm right about 24 on the NPXL and 12 on the Whisper. I think I was comparing CPHPs. I don't have the data any more but as both guns reached about 35 yards they were dropping to around 5fpe and I think that the 22 actually dropped lower than the 177 around 37 yards. I'd have to re-create the chart. I looked and don't have it saved.

[Bullit]

Dusan,   
Unless you can maintain faster to the Transonic Window to your POI or further,  best off to stay subsonic.  We got PCP guys here that play that real HP stuff! Way to much $$$ for airgunning for me.  LOL
The .17 HMR round stays real flat at high speed, but that's a different critter

[grobe1458]

this appears to have turned into a .177 vs .22 when there's really not one is better than the other, each are good within their limitations
for me it comes down to the correct tool for the task at hand. to say .177 is not a good hunting gun is not correct, there are too many videos on youtube with sub 12ft.lb AG's effectively killing prey fast and humanely.
.22 has it's advantages, .177 has it's advantages. the key factor is the shooter. if you can effectively kill with a .177 at long range and are not exceeding the guns or your limit them I see nothing wrong. I've removed various pest at various ranges effectively.
I have a .22 and had the mrod.25 and they were equally effective, but I prefer .177 because it means I can't be lazy and take a close or risky shot.
and because not every kill doesn't drop dead on the spot doesn't mean the gun or shooter isn't effective.
if I know my ag will deliver 5ft.lbs at 85 yards, and I want squirrel, I will have squirrel.*LOL*

[johninthecamper]

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.

I knew the energy thing, that's what is was saying,transferring as much to the target.
this heading is hunting,which involves hitting and finding the target.my 117 would go threw bunnies only found the head shots.I lived in the "conejo valley" Spanish for rabbit.they were all over like birds everywhere else.there is (or was)a cool rabbit law just for that area,involving season and limit.there is none.
177 worked but only close enough to hit the head,which was bordering on its effective range.
22 would knock them over,with a chest shot.and a wounding body shot would still stop them long enough to move the few feet to find them.
distance was the enemy for all of the variables multiplying.

what would elmer keith and tom horn have to say would be interesting.

look what Willie miscone can do with a broom stick

[Bullit]

jrhunter.   Way too many flaws in that video to accept.  Starts with accuracy of either at short range.  But obviously had a sick .177 rifle for use.  Losing so much accuracy and power at 20 yards ... I'd fix the gun first.   Using only Barracuda over Dome pellets for his findings?  Shoulda fixed it and took a few shot strings, before hanging his hat on those findings.  Just 3 or 4 registered shots ?   I dunno ...  but that's what Youtube's for
 I'm sure others will chime in...but maybe look at your video a few times.

jrhunter:   Did you make this video?  Or just found it on YouTube?

[jrhunter]

jrhunter.   Way too many flaws in that video to accept.  Starts with accuracy of either at short range.  But obviously had a sick .177 rifle for use.  Losing so much accuracy and power at 20 yards ... I'd fix the gun first.   Using only Barracuda over Dome pellets for his findings?  Shoulda fixed it and took a few shot strings, before hanging his hat on those findings.  Just 3 or 4 registered shots ?   I dunno ...  but that's what Youtube's for
 I'm sure others will chime in...but maybe look at your video a few times.

jrhunter:   Did you make this video?  Or just found it on YouTube?

all videos are ones I have found.

[Bullit]

OK.  Good.  Didn't wanna make you feel bad after I posted it.
YouTube videos are cool and all...but you see sometimes that the reviews/comparisons/etc.  aren't the most "controlled" or believable, or long ranged in time reviewed.  So you kinda take their findings with a grain of salt.   There are some good ones out there tho!

[gandalfretlaw]

There is a turbulence zone around supersonic speed. It's something like 100fps in either direction and is what kept Chuck Yayger thinking that the plane was going to break up. It's also a slope so it increases as you get closer and then decreases as you pass it. You don't encounter this if you launch the projectile at 2500fps like most rifles. They do encounter this at very long range when they go subsonic though. But a pellet launched at 1300fps is going to spend most of it's flight in this turbulence and accuracy is going to degrade. Also it's noisy; sounds like a gunshot. Supersonic is right around 1050fps but it changes with temperature and altitude. So keeping under abut 950fps for airguns will make them more accurate. Real target guns are generally more like 600-800. For hunting I like to push the limit as it translates into more power delivered.

My general rule is to find a gun/pellet that shoots 900-950fps for hunting regardless of caliber. I think it delivers the most umpth and best expansion. My NPXL shoots CPHPs at around 900 and my Whisper shoots RWS Basic Match also at around 900. My Walther hasn't been chronied but I was only able to get it subsonic with Beeman Kodiak Coppers which are 10.19gn in 177. I'm sure the kill shot I made on that Rooser was blazing fast as it was a RWS Basic Match. Probably 1200 or so. It turned it's spine into sand.

[grobe1458]

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

yes the .22 will retain more energy over a shorter distance but when all you need is 5ft.lbs or less to effectively kill your quarry at 20 yards, just how much more effective is it? dead is dead, a bigger hole doesn't make it any more deader. *LOL*

[Bullit]

jrhunter.   I do now see how young of a shooter, you are. 
Perhaps if you look into learning about how "bc" works,  basic ballistic math...and really anything about practical physics, will really help you for anything related. I'll bet my last doughnut, that there's a math teacher that may get a Big Grin, to have something so cool, to help you with.   It's good to be able to understand the math, and Xreference one, to the other.  Like..."how hard was randy johnson's fastball on the pigeon"?
 I think you'll get a great tool and insight, in your "toolbox" that you can use to do the calcs yourself, and eliminate the BS you hear, read, or see online.

[jrhunter]

jrhunter.   I do now see how young of a shooter, you are. 
Perhaps if you look into learning about how "bc" works,  basic ballistic math...and really anything about practical physics, will really help you for anything related. I'll bet my last doughnut, that there's a math teacher that may get a Big Grin, to have something so cool, to help you with.   It's good to be able to understand the math, and Xreference one, to the other.
 I think you'll get a great tool in your "toolbox" that you can use to do the calcs yourself, and eliminate the BS you hear, read, or see online.

I know some about B.C. but only about in Powder Burners. I know the higher the B.C. ( Ballistic Coefficient ) the better energy is retained. Do pellets have S.D. ( structural density ) like real ammunition ? S.D. makes it harder for the bullet to separate and helps it penetrate farther. 

[TriggerHappyDude]

I know some about B.C. but only about in Powder Burners. I know the higher the B.C. ( Ballistic Coefficient ) the better energy is retained. Do pellets have S.D. ( structural density ) like real ammunition ? S.D. makes it harder for the bullet to separate and helps it penetrate farther.

Ive had a hard time finding ballistic coefficients for pellets, i would have thought that manufacturers would include this data somewhere ...
As i understand it, it is a drag coefficient?

Anyone know the BC for JSB .177 exact express and exact heavy?

[grobe1458]

I know some about B.C. but only about in Powder Burners. I know the higher the B.C. ( Ballistic Coefficient ) the better energy is retained. Do pellets have S.D. ( structural density ) like real ammunition ? S.D. makes it harder for the bullet to separate and helps it penetrate farther.

Ive had a hard time finding ballistic coefficients for pellets, i would have thought that manufacturers would include this data somewhere ...
As i understand it, it is a drag coefficient?

Anyone know the BC for JSB .177 exact express and exact heavy?

from chairgun they are
jsb exact express bc is 0.0210 weight 7.9
jsb exact heavy bc is 0.0310 weight 10.30

[Bryan Heimann]

.22 pellets typically have higher ballistic coefficients and retain energy better at longer ranges.  If you have found the opposite to be true in your testing, keep testing and you'll see..

[Bullit]

The bc of the pellet are not typically higher in .22 caliber.  They are lower in many cases.  Check the table on Chairgun and you'll see.