Why don't we hear of .22s taken up to just under the speed of sound, the way .177s are?

I am in the process of refurbishing my RWS 48 (with a James Maccari kit as per Frank's suggestion) and the question occurred to me when RossB wrote that Diana uses different-strength springs for different markets to comply with specific regulations.

I was thinking I'd be happy to get to 800 fps with 14 grns (from my current 625), but now that I think about it, why stop there? If it were just the spring, people would get stronger ones.

There must be a reason. Is it the seals, is it the pellets, is it the exponentially higher cocking effort required...? There may well be a simple reason but I am curious.

60 or so lbs cocking effort for 800+ fps. Try shooting a tin of pellets through that in one afternoon. I can guarantee you won't do it again. Thats why power levels are where they. Unless someone builds a better design (someone has, but few have noticed), don't look for any changes in performance in the near future.

as far as cocking effort goes, granted I much prefer "plinking" with my 54(.22) the Patriot is great as far as a hunting gun goes...I would like to pick up a .22 barrel/breech and lever assembly though some day for the Patriot, .22 pellets would be real cheap and flat shooting at 900 fps or so...

Tony

"60 or so lbs cocking effort for 800+ fps."

 

That is complete utter nonsense. I have several .22 springers that do well over 800fps with 14 grain pellets and the cocking is NOWHERE near 60 lbs. Take a look at the Diana 350 magnum for starters.

Effort of the Patriot is 48lbs. Gamo 1250 is 58lbs, and the 350M is 40lbs. The most is the Crow Magnum at 60lbs. However I remember reading some where that if you install a .177 gas ram into a .22 rifle (or .25 for that matter) you will considerably inrease the fps for the same cocking effort ??? How true this is I dont know, and what other positive or adverse effects it will have on the rifle in general.
M.

I put one in my .22 Webley Exocet. Didn't change the power, cocking effort was about the same, but it did smooth it out considerably and shortened the lock time a bit. Not worth the extra expense, a good tune-up will get fairly similiar results. After installing a Paladin spring and delrin guide, power went up about 30 fps, cocking effort stayed where it was, and no vibration at all.

No offense intended, but you need to educate yourself on the difference between velocity and energy. Kinetic energy is obtained by multiplying the square of a projectile's velocity by its mass. For airguns this is usually expressed in foot-pounds.

A .22 pellet is much heavier than a .177 one, therefore it will obtain a given energy level at a lower velocity. Or to look at it another way, an airgun of a given model will produce about the same number of foot-pounds in either caliber, but it's physically impossible to give them the same velocity.

Getting 900 fps in .22 out of a typical production spring-piston airgun design would require a gun so large, heavy, and hard to cock, that few people would be interested in owning it.

Which makes sense if you think about it: raising a .22s velocity from (an already pretty hot) 850 fps to 1,100 means a 29% increase in velocity, which in turn means 67% more energy and that equals 67% more cocking effort.

Would I want 67% more cocking effort on a 48/52? Well, not really. But then, 1,100 fps in .22 would mean almost varmint rifle ballistics. OK, exaggerate but still, I guess it would be possible to put head shots on crows at 100 meters with thing like that.

If it's just the cocking effort, could some sort of a tubular cocking lever not solve that problem? The top of the lever could extend out, like an old car antenna, by say about a foot for cocking, then be retracted when the lever is brought back into alignment with the stock... food for thought

One rifle that I know of (there may be more) with an extendable cocking lever. The Chinese B-21/22 copy of the RWS 48-54 sidelever has one. Not only is cocking effort a limiting factor, but so is the overall firing characteristics of the gun. Putting a powerful spring and/or heavy piston in a .22 to achieve 900+ fps will result in more recoil. That, coupled with the fact that unless the rest of the powerplant is designed right, could lead to harsh firing behavior. A gun with hi velocity but poor behavior would quickly loose it's appeal. Plus it could be even more likely to damage scopes. Look at the length of the RWS M350, the Webley Patriot/Beeman Kodiak and the Gamo 1250's compression chamber. Getting that power level requires a longer/stronger spring and swept area. Even the gas ram powerhouses (Theoben Eliminator/Crow Magnum) are large in that respect.  I think that's where the designers have to reach a happy medium. Power versus cocking effort and firing behavior. 

Respectfully Nathan   

On the 54 that I have, I just took off the cocking side lever and had a longer one manufactured 10cms longer. This reduced cocking effort considerably, while keeping the general look of the rifle the same.
This of course cannot be done with a break barrel.
Nor an under lever unless you dont mind the cocking under lever to extend beyond the barrel.
M.